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, 15.1Cases 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 299Category: Costs Parties: Norman Augustus McDonald Hunter (First Applicant)
Beth Janine Hunter (Second Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)Representation: COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
P Tomasetti SC and A Hemmings (Applicants)
A Galasso and M Staunton (Respondent)
Conditsis Lawyers (Applicants)
Marsdens (Respondent)
File Number(s): 16/155633
Judgment
Costs in class 1 appeal
-
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
- AGLC
- Hunter v Central Coast Council [2017] NSWLEC 154
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 154
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.