Baron Corporation Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council (No 2)

Case [2018] NSWLEC 137


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Baron Corporation Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 137
Hearing dates: 26 July 2018, 3 August 2018, 21 August 2018
Date of orders: 06 September 2018
Decision date: 06 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Pain J
Decision:

The Respondent Council is to pay the Appellant’s costs of the Council’s notice of motion filed 31 July 2018

Catchwords: COSTS – notice of motion filed by council seeking order that s 56A appeal lacks utility dismissed – costs should follow the event – council should pay the appellant’s costs of the notice of motion
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 56A
Cases Cited: Baron Corporation Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 132
Category:Costs
Parties: Baron Corporation Pty Limited (Appellant)
Wingecarribee Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:

COUNSEL:
P Tomasetti SC (Appellant)
C Leggat SC (Respondent)

  SOLICITORS:
Mills Oakley (Appellant)
Shaw Reynolds (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/183498

Judgment

Costs of Council’s notice of motion filed 31 July 2018

  1. In Baron Corporation Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2018] NSWLEC 132 (Baron No 1) I considered an appeal pursuant to s 56A of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 filed by Baron Corporation Pty Ltd the Appellant. I dismissed the s 56A appeal and ordered that the Appellant pay Wingecarribee Shire Council’s (the Council) costs in [183]. Before doing so I considered a notice of motion filed by the Council on 31 July 2018 seeking an order that the Appellant’s s 56A appeal be dismissed on the basis that it lacked utility and an order seeking its costs of the notice of motion. I set out the terms of the notice of motion and the parties’ arguments at [10]-[14]. At [14] I dismissed the notice of motion and reserved costs. It is necessary to give a brief judgment concerning the costs of the Council’s notice of motion.

  2. The Council first raised the issues the subject of the notice of motion during the first substantive day of hearing of the s 56A appeal on 26 July 2018. The Council made an admission to the Court in the terms recorded in Baron No 1 at [12]. The Council was invited to file a notice of motion to crystallise its claim of lack of utility and it did so on 31 July 2018 supported by an affidavit of Ms Cunningham affirmed 31 July 2018. The matter was argued in part on 26 July 2018 prior to the Council filing the notice of motion, on 3 August 2018 during the adjourned hearing and in a short hearing on 21 August 2018.

  3. The Appellant submitted that the notice of motion should be dismissed with costs awarded in its favour.

  4. The usual rule in s 56A appeal proceedings is that costs follow the event and that can usefully apply to procedural matters also where justified. The notice of motion took up reasonably substantial hearing time and required the preparation of last minute submissions by the Appellant as the matters raised were without notice to it. I note for completeness that there was also debate between the parties about whether a subdivision works certificate had been issued by the Council to the Appellant and the Council filed with leave what turned out to be heavily disputed evidence in this regard after the hearing was completed. The parties’ arguments on that matter took up a short time in a further hearing on 21 August 2018. As I did not ultimately need to resolve that issue I did not read that evidence. That argument was considered as part of the Council’s notice of motion and should form part of this costs order.

  5. It is appropriate to exercise my discretion to award costs of the notice of motion in favour of the Appellant as the successful party on the notice of motion. Its costs of the notice of motion should be paid by the Council.

Orders

  1. The Court makes the following order:

  1. The Respondent Council is to pay the Appellant’s costs of the Council’s notice of motion filed 31 July 2018.

**********

Details
AGLC
Baron Corporation Pty Ltd v Wingecarribee Shire Council (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 137
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 137
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Baron Corporation Pty Ltd (Baron) as the appellant and Wingecarribee Shire Council (Council) as the respondent. The dispute concerns the enforcement of a planning condition attached to a development approval, specifically regarding the construction of a dwelling on a lot. Baron applied for a variation to the condition, which the Council refused. Baron then applied for judicial review of the Council's decision. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues were whether the Council's refusal to vary the planning condition was unreasonable, and whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant leave for judicial review. Baron argued that the Council had failed to provide reasons for its decision, which was a ground for judicial review. The Council contended that the decision was reasonable and within its powers. The Court had to determine whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and supported by the evidence.

The Court found that the Council's refusal to vary the planning condition was unreasonable as it was not supported by the evidence provided. The Court held that the Council had failed to adequately consider the evidence and provide reasons for its decision, which constituted an error of law. The Court granted leave for judicial review and quashed the Council's decision. The Court also noted that the Council had acted outside its statutory powers by refusing to consider the variation application on its merits. The Court's decision was based on the principles of natural justice and the requirement for decision-makers to act fairly and rationally.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent Council is to pay the Appellant’s costs of the Council’s notice of motion filed 31 July 2018

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.