Written submissions filed 11, 25 August, 1, 8 September 2023
Date of orders:
25 October 2023
Decision date:
25 October 2023
Jurisdiction:
Class 4
Before:
Pain J
Decision:
The Court orders that:
(1) The Council Second Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the substantive proceeding as agreed or assessed.
(2) The Council Second Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the costs proceeding as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:
COSTS — party/party — successful applicant should receive all costs – respondent who filed submitting appearance not liable for costs – respondent council liable for applicant’s costs
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Inglis v Buckley (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Inglis v Buckley (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 113
Case
[2023] NSWLEC 113
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Inglis v Buckley (No 2) involved a dispute between the applicant and the Council, with the second respondent also being a party. The primary nature of the dispute was related to the costs associated with a substantive proceeding and a subsequent costs proceeding. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The court had to determine the legal issues surrounding the costs incurred by the applicant in both the substantive proceeding and the costs proceeding. This included whether the applicant was entitled to recover these costs from the Council, the second respondent, and if so, the amount to be awarded. The court's analysis required consideration of the relevant legislation and case law pertaining to costs in legal proceedings, particularly focusing on the circumstances that justify the award of costs to a prevailing party.
In its judgment, the court found that the applicant was entitled to recover the costs of both the substantive proceeding and the costs proceeding from the Council. The court reasoned that the applicant, as the prevailing party, was entitled to such costs under the applicable legal principles. The court detailed the basis for its decision, taking into account the nature of the proceedings and the outcomes achieved by the applicant. Consequently, the court ordered that the Council, as the second respondent, was to pay the applicant's costs of both the substantive proceeding and the costs proceeding, as agreed or assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
(1) The Council Second Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the substantive proceeding as agreed or assessed.
(2) The Council Second Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the costs proceeding as agreed or assessed.