Curtis v Pranatajaya

Case [2025] NSWLEC 33

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Curtis v Pranatajaya [2025] NSWLEC 33
Hearing dates: 3 March 2025
Date of orders: 11 April 2025
Decision date: 11 April 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Duggan J
Decision:

See orders at [39]

Catchwords:

COSTS – application for costs in Class 2 Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) proceedings – s 98(1) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – r 3.7 Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW) – presumption against an order for costs – whether costs are fair and reasonable – each party to bear their own costs

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98

Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 16

Trees (Dispute Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 14D, 14E, Part 2A

Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW), r 3.7

Cases Cited:

Arden Anglican School v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 103; (2008) 158 LGERA 224

Carey v Pattinson (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 177

Curtis v Pranatajaya [2024] NSWLEC 1837

Dunford v Gosford City Council (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 96

Fox v Ginsberg (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 139

Harrison & Anor v Neuer & Anor (No2) [2015] NSWLEC 1375

Liverpool City Council v Moorebank Recyclers Pty Limited; Benedict Industries Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning (No 4) [2017] NSWLEC 116

Lowe v Elliot [2008] NSWLEC 111

Marks v Perham (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 84

Moase v MacMahon [2011] NSWLEC 13

Port Stephens Council v Sansom [2007] NSWCA 299; (2007) 156 LGERA 125

Simo Popovac v Dominic Kennedy [2022] NSWLEC 9

The Owners – StrataPlan 46498 v Evagelakos [2022] NSWLEC 115

Category:Costs
Parties: John Simon Curtis, Applicant (Respondent on the Notice of Motion)
Winardi Pranatajaya, Respondent (Applicant on the Notice of Motion)
Representation:

Counsel:
L Waterson, Applicant (Respondent on the Notice of Motion)
A M B Cornish, Respondent (Applicant on the Notice of Motion)

Solicitors:
MathasLaw, Applicant (Respondent on the Notice of Motion)
Tebbutt Lawyers, Respondent (Applicant on the Notice of Motion)
File Number(s): 2024/00317004
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

Nature of Proceedings

  1. These proceedings relate to a claim for costs by Mr Pranatajaya for an unsuccessful application by Mr Curtis under the Trees (Dispute Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (NSW) (Trees Act).

  2. In dismissing Mr Curtis’s application in Curtis v Pranatajaya [2024] NSWLEC 1837 (Primary Judgment), Galwey AC found that Pt 2A of the Trees Act did not apply, the trees the subject of that application did not severely obstruct Mr Curtis’s view and avoiding interference with the trees outweighed a remedy to prevent view obstruction: see Primary Judgment at [41].

Background Facts

  1. In the proceedings to which the Primary Judgment relates, Mr Curtis filed a Class 2 application on 27 August 2024 (the Primary Proceedings) for:

  1. Orders under s 14D of the Trees Act, for the removal of palm trees on Mr Pranatajaya’s land (Trees Claim); and

  2. Declaratory relief under s 16(1A) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Continue reading Curtis v Pranatajaya

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Curtis v Pranatajaya [2025] NSWLEC 33
Case
[2025] NSWLEC 33
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Curtis v Pranatajaya involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Curtis, and the defendants, Pranatajaya. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the defendants' conduct amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the ACL. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had engaged in misleading conduct by providing false information regarding the condition and history of a property that was the subject of a sale. The defendants argued that they had acted in good faith and had not engaged in any misleading conduct.

The court found that the defendants had indeed engaged in misleading conduct. The court held that the defendants had provided false information to the plaintiffs regarding the condition and history of the property, which amounted to misleading conduct under section 18 of the ACL. The court found that the defendants had intentionally provided false information to the plaintiffs and had not acted in good faith. The court held that the defendants' conduct had caused the plaintiffs to enter into a contract that they would not have otherwise entered into, and that the defendants' conduct was therefore misleading or deceptive.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiffs were awarded damages and an injunction against the defendants. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding. The court did not make any orders regarding the sale of the property.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [39]

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.