NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Mauger v Wingecarribee Shire Council (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 1191 Hearing dates: 14 August 2015 Date of orders: 28 August 2015 Decision date: 28 August 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: 1. The Court declares that the findings by the Independent reviewer in her report made on 25 August 2011 (paragraphs 86-88 of the report), as to allegations about expenses incurred by the plaintiff for attending the dinner at Condobolin, was unlawfully made in that the reviewer failed to put to the plaintiff the substance of the information she received in her investigation on and after 2 August 2011 and before she finalised her report.
2.The Plaintiff should pay 50% of the Defendant's costs of the proceedings Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – reviewer fails to accord procedural fairness – effect of finding – council resolution passed on basis of reviewer's determination – whether resolution null and void – form of declaration to give effect to finding COSTS – proceedings for judicial review – multiple claims – multiple issues - plaintiff succeeds on one issue only on one claim – whether costs should be apportioned Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) Cases Cited: Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 Hexiva Pty Ltd v Lederer (Costs) [2006] NSWSC 1259 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 750 Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) [1986] ATPR 40, 748 James v Surf Road Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 296 Mauger v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2015] NSWSC 1022 Permanent Trustee Aust Ltd v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), 3 June 1998, unrep) Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 Thiess v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No 5) [1994] 1 Qd R 156 Waters v P C Henderson (Aust) Pty Ltd [1994] NSWCA 338; (1994) 254 ALR 328 Category: Costs Parties: James Mauger (Plaintiff) Wingecarribee Shire Council (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: V McWilliam (Plaintiff) M A Robinson SC & A Poljak (Defendant)
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