Lend Lease GPT (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd v Hills Shire Council (No 2)
Case
•
[2011] NSWLEC 26
•03 March 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lend Lease GPT (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd v Hills Shire Council (No.2) [2011] NSWLEC 26 [2011] NSWLEC 26
[2011] NSWLEC 26
03 March 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Lend Lease GPT (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd sought an injunction to prevent the Hills Shire Council from enforcing an order made in earlier proceedings that they cease development activities on a site at Rouse Hill. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the council was entitled to an order for the applicant to pay its costs of the earlier proceedings, and if so, how much that order should be. A secondary issue was whether the council was entitled to an order for the applicant to pay its costs of the current proceedings.
The court found that the council was entitled to an order for the applicant to pay its costs of the earlier proceedings, as the council had been the successful party in those proceedings. However, the court found that the amount of the order should be reduced, as the council had not provided sufficient evidence to support the full amount of costs claimed. The court also found that the council was not entitled to an order for the applicant to pay its costs of the current proceedings, as the applicant had not acted vexatiously or oppressively. The court noted that the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success in the current proceedings, and that the council's application for costs was an attempt to stifle that prospect.
The court found that the council was entitled to an order for the applicant to pay its costs of the earlier proceedings, as the council had been the successful party in those proceedings. However, the court found that the amount of the order should be reduced, as the council had not provided sufficient evidence to support the full amount of costs claimed. The court also found that the council was not entitled to an order for the applicant to pay its costs of the current proceedings, as the applicant had not acted vexatiously or oppressively. The court noted that the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success in the current proceedings, and that the council's application for costs was an attempt to stifle that prospect.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Planning & Development Law
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Lend Lease GPT (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd v Hills Shire Council (No.2) [2011] NSWLEC 26 [2011] NSWLEC 26
Most Recent Citation
Kanjian Holdings No 1 Pty Ltd v Kanjian; Kanjian v Kanjian (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 1390
Cases Citing This Decision
6
GJ v AS (No 4)
[2017] ACTCA 7
Kanjian Holdings No 1 Pty Ltd v Kanjian; Kanjian v Kanjian (No 4)
[2021] NSWSC 1390
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
4
Lend Lease GPT (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council
[2010] NSWLEC 130
Universal Childcare Pty Ltd v Leichhardt Municipal Council
[2008] NSWLEC 277
Grant v Kiama Municipal Council
[2006] NSWLEC 70