NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision: 172 LGERA 157
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Hastings Point Progress Association Inc v Tweed Shire Council (No 3) [2010] NSWCA 39
HEARING DATE(S): On the papers
JUDGMENT DATE: 19 March 2010
JUDGMENT OF: McColl JA at [1]; Basten JA at [2]; Young JA at [14]
(1) Vary the order made on 11 September 2009 with respect to costs so that the order now reads: (a) appeal dismissed; DECISION: (b) appellant to pay the second respondent's costs in this Court. (2) Note that the costs in this Court will include the costs of the application to vary the orders made on 11 September 2009. (3) Otherwise dismiss the application to vary those orders.
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE- costs- reason for departure from general rule- unsuccessful alleged public interest litigation- appellant appearing to be a genuine public interest group significant factor- however respondent is a commercial enterprise, not a State or government authority- no broad question of natural environment- some benefit to appellant as private citizens- proceedings were an appeal by unsuccessful party not directly affected- no substantial evidence on whether there is "something more" to justify departure from the ordinary rule as to costs- Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, r 4.2 of little assistance on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 11, 98 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 123 LEGISLATION CITED: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, r 4.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 1.7, 42.1, Sch 2
Anderson v NSW Minister for Planning (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 272; 163 LGERA 132 Buddhist Society of Western Australia (Inc) v Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale [1999] WASCA 55 Coffs Harbour Environment Centre Inc v Minister for Planning (1994) 84 LGERA 324 Engadine Area Traffic Action Group Inc v Sutherland Shire Council (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 434; 136 LGERA 365 Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for Environment Heritage and Arts (No 2) [2009] FCA 466 CASES CITED: Mees v Kemp (No 2) [2004] FCA 549 Minister for Planning v Walker (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 334 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72 Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) [2001] FCA 1865; 115 FCR 229 Save the Ridge Inc v Commonwealth [2006] FCAFC 51; 230 ALR 411 State of New South Wales v Gebethner [2009] NSWCA 237
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate