Hunter v Central Coast Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 154


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hunter v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 154
Hearing dates:20 September 2017, 20 November 2017
Date of orders: 23 November 2017
Decision date: 23 November 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Pain J
Decision:

(1) The Applicants’ Amended Notice of Motion dated 5 September 2017 is dismissed.
(2) The Applicants are to pay the Council’s costs of the Amended Notice of Motion dated 5 September 2017.
(3) The exhibits be returned.

Catchwords: COSTS – not fair and reasonable to award partial costs in Class 1 proceedings – no extraneous purpose in challenge to voluntary planning agreement established – no failure to produce documents in timely fashion in circumstances - no failure to unreasonably pursue various contentions
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 56
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 79C, 82A, 93F, 93H, 94, 94A, 97, 97B
Gosford Planning Scheme Ordinance cl 49DN
Heritage Act 1977 s 24
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 34
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 r 3.7
State Environmental Planning Policy No 71 – Coastal Protection
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 1.9, 15.1
Cases Cited: ACM Landmark Pty Limited v Cessnock City Council [2006] NSWLEC 256
Arden Anglican School v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 103
Boensch v Parramatta City Council (No 3) [2014] NSWLEC 15
Coolah Holdings Pty Ltd v Eurobodalla Shire Council (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 84
Community Association DP270253 v Woollahra Municipal Council [2015] NSWCA 80; 207 LGERA 268
Dunford v Gosford City Council (No 3) [2015] NSWLEC 96
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; [1990] HCA 59
Norman McDonald & Anor v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1207
Port Stephens Council v Sansom (2007) 156 LGERA 125; [2007] NSWCA 299
Category:Costs
Parties: Norman Augustus McDonald Hunter (First Applicant)
Beth Janine Hunter (Second Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation:

COUNSEL:
P Tomasetti SC and A Hemmings (Applicants)
A Galasso and M Staunton (Respondent)

  SOLICITORS:
Conditsis Lawyers (Applicants)
Marsdens (Respondent)
File Number(s):16/155633

Judgment

Costs in class 1 appeal

  1. The Applicants Mr and Mrs Hunter were successful in a Class 1 appeal in gaining development consent for alterations and additions to the existing Avoca Beach Theatre for mixed-use development, Norman McDonald & Anor v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 1207 (the Commissioner’s judgment). The Applicants seek part of their costs of that appeal pursuant to r 3.7 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (Court Rules) together with the costs of their Amended Notice of Motion dated 5 September 2017. The costs application is opposed by the Respondent Central Coast Council which seeks its costs of the Motion. The costs hearing was set down for one day but required two days. The Applicants’ Motion seeks all the costs of the proceedings. The Applicants’ senior counsel advised on the second day of hearing that the costs sought were as identified in the affidavit of Ms Huscroft solicitor affirmed on 11 July 2017 namely…

Continue reading Hunter v Central Coast Council

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hunter v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 154
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Hunter and another, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Central Coast Council to refuse their application to develop a parcel of land. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants challenged the Council’s decision on the basis that it was unreasonable and based on an error of law.

The central issue before the court was whether the Council's decision was legally sound and whether the applicants' claims of error of law were valid. The court had to examine the grounds upon which the Council's decision was based and determine if there were any procedural or substantive errors in the decision-making process. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the Council's decision was supported by the relevant evidence and if the applicants' claims of bias or procedural unfairness were substantiated.

The court held that the Council's decision was not flawed and was both legally sound and procedurally fair. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the Council had acted unreasonably or committed any error of law. The court found that the decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant evidence and statutory criteria. As such, the applicants' claims were dismissed, and the Council's costs of the application were awarded. The exhibits were ordered to be returned to the Council.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Applicants’ Amended Notice of Motion dated 5 September 2017 is dismissed.

(2) The Applicants are to pay the Council’s costs of the Amended Notice of Motion dated 5 September 2017.

(3) The exhibits be returned.

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.