Anderson & Anor v Stonnington City Council

ANDERSON & ANOR
v
STONNINGTON CITY COUNCIL
[2021] HCASL 254
M102/2020

The applicants seek to reopen the decision of this Court (Kiefel CJ and Gordon J) on 12 April 2021, whereby the applicants' application for special leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria given on 7 September 2020 was dismissed with costs. The present application seeks to set aside this Court's order as to costs, and to substitute in its place orders that the respondent pay the applicants' costs of their special leave application and of the proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and in the courts below.
It must be noted immediately that, in the application for special leave to appeal that was determined on 12 April 2021, it was stated in para 30 that "[t]here are no reasons why, if the application for special leave is refused, costs should not follow the event". Accordingly, once the application for special leave was refused, the order for costs that was made was made in conformity with the position put by the applicants.
In the present application the applicants argue that, notwithstanding that their application for special leave was rightly dismissed, the respondent should bear both its own and the applicants' costs of the proceedings. But they advance no reason why the principle that a party to litigation is bound by the conduct of its case should not apply. More generally, they advance no basis at all on which the decision of 12 April 2021 might properly be reopened.
The present application should be dismissed.

S.J. Gageler P.A. Keane

9 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Anderson and another, have applied to the High Court of Australia to reopen a decision that dismissed their application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The application seeks to set aside the costs order made by the High Court on 12 April 2021, which required the applicants to pay the costs of their application, and to substitute a new order requiring the respondent, Stonnington City Council, to pay those costs, as well as the costs of the proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and in the lower courts. The High Court was asked to decide whether the principle that a party to litigation is bound by the conduct of its case should apply, and whether there were any reasons to reopen the decision of 12 April 2021.

The applicants argued that the principle should not apply, and that the respondent should bear both its own and the applicants' costs of the proceedings, but they did not provide any reasons why the principle should not apply or why the decision of 12 April 2021 should be reopened. The High Court considered the applicants' arguments and found them to be unpersuasive. The Court held that the principle that a party to litigation is bound by the conduct of its case should apply, and that there were no reasons to reopen the decision of 12 April 2021.

The High Court dismissed the application to reopen the decision and to substitute a new costs order. The Court held that the applicants had not provided any valid reasons for setting aside the costs order made on 12 April 2021, and that the principle that a party to litigation is bound by the conduct of its case should apply. The Court also found that there were no reasons to reopen the decision of 12 April 2021.

The High Court's orders in this case were that the application to reopen the decision and to substitute a new costs order be dismissed, and that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application. This outcome reinforces the principle that a party to litigation is bound by the conduct of its case, and that orders for costs should follow the event unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify a departure from this principle.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established