Council of the City of Botany Bay v Michos

The Council of the City of Botany Bay (the applicant) sought leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal against a decision of the primary judge. The dispute concerned an application for indemnity costs. The applicant sought to appeal the primary judge's decision regarding costs, while the respondent sought to cross-appeal on the same issue.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the applicant had established grounds for leave to appeal, specifically whether the appeal raised a question of public importance or would prevent an injustice, as per rule 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the respondent had grounds for leave to cross-appeal, particularly in light of new evidence and whether the primary judge erred in not awarding indemnity costs for the entirety of the proceedings. The Court also had to consider whether indemnity costs should be awarded in respect of the leave application itself.

The Court dismissed both the application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross-appeal. The Court found that neither the appeal nor the cross-appeal met the threshold for granting leave. Consequently, there was no order as to the costs of the application for leave to cross-appeal. However, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs in the Court of Appeal.