Dash & Anor v Gosford City Council & Ors [1988] NSWLEC 139

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Dash & Anor v Gosford City Council & Ors [1988] NSWLEC 139 APPLICANT Dash & Anor PARTIES : RESPONDENT Gosford City Council & Ors

FILE NUMBER(S) : 40166 of 1988 CORAM: Bignold J KEY ISSUES: :- LEGISLATION CITED: Local Government Act, 1919 CASES CITED: Cousins v. Warringah Shire Council (1985) DATES OF HEARING: DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/28/1988

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

JUDGMENT:

Bignold J.: The Respondents who successfully resisted the Applicant's claim for interlocutory relief seek an order for costs in respect of the hearing of the Applicant's Motion on 30th August, 1988 which was dismissed on 31st August, 1988 for the reasons published in my judgment of that date.

The Applicant opposes any order for costs and submits that costs of the hearing on the Motion for interlocutory relief should be costs in the cause.

In the case of the 2nd Respondent the Applicant submits that no order for costs should be made since no interlocutory relief was sought against the 2nd Respondent.

In the case of the 1st Respondent the Applicant submits that I should regard its conduct as in effect bringing on itself the proceedings for interlocutory relief in a manner that disentitles it to its costs.

In my opinion there are no special or exceptional circumstances in the present case that would justify or require a departure from the usual costs order in class 4 proceedings that costs follow the event.

I do not regard the 1st Respondent's conduct (through its solicitors) informing the Applicant that it intended to certify the approved plan at the expiration of 7 days from the date of its letter (ie 23rd August, 1988) as involving any impropriety in the conduct of the litigation that was then on foot. The relevant history of correspondence between the Applicant and the 1st Respondent is detailed in my judgment (pp.8-10). Although it is clear that it was the aforesaid letter from the 1st Respondent's solicitor dated 23rd August, 1988 that prompted the Applicant to file his Motion seeking interlocutory relief (in the originating application filed on 8th August, 1988 no interlocutory relief was sought) it cannot be concluded that the 1st Respondent was guilty of any misconduct in the proceedings that might in accordance with established principle operate to disentitle it as the successful party to its costs.