Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services - [2012] NSWLEC 196

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hurstville City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 196
Hearing dates: Written submissions
Decision date: 24 August 2012
Before: Pain J
Decision:
The Court orders the Applicant to pay the costs of the First, Second and Third Respondents as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: COSTS - exercise of discretion to award costs where local council unsuccessful in judicial review proceedings challenging concept plan approval under Part 3A - while public interest proceedings, lack of "something more" to justify departure from usual costs rule - interest not payable on award of costs - submitting party's costs are payable
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 11, s 98
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Pt 3A, s 123
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 cl 8F
Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Compensation Act 1991
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 r 4.2(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 1.7, Sch 2, Pt 42 r 42.1
Cases Cited: Amalgamated Holdings Ltd v North Sydney Council [2012] NSWLEC 138
Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] NSWLEC 59; 173 LGERA 280
Delta Electricity v Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc [2010] NSWCA 263; (2010) 176 LGERA 424
Drummond and Rosen Pty Ltd v Easey (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 331
Engadine Area Traffic Action Group Inc v Sutherland Shire Council (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 434; (2004) 136 LGERA 365
Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 56; (2007) 234 CLR 52
Hastings Point Progress Association Inc v Tweed Shire Council (No 3) [2010] NSWCA 39; (2010) 172 LGERA 157
Hillig v Darkinjung Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 147
Hurstville City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure [2012] NSWLEC 134
John Williams Neighbourhood Group Inc v Minister for Planning [2011] NSWLEC 100
Leda Pty Ltd v Weerden (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 283
Lahoud v Lahoud [2006] NSWSC 126
Manns v Attorney General of New South Wales (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 325
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 96 LGERA 173
Robb Evans of Robb Evans & Associates v European Bank Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 170
Sarkar and Islam v Everest Property Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 305
Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Planning (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 96
Taylor v Port Macquarie-Hastings Council [2010] NSWLEC 153; 175 LGERA 189
Ying v Song [2011] NSWSC 618
Category: Costs
Parties: Hurstville City Council (Applicant)
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (First Respondent)
Earljest Pty Limited (Second Respondent)
Henlia No. 24 Pty Limited (Third Respondent)
Representation: Mr P Rigg (solicitor) (Applicant)
Mr A Shearer (First Respondent)
Mr J Doyle (Second Respondent)
Mr T Robertson SC with Mr J Lazarus (Third Respondent)
Norton Rose Australia (Applicant)
Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Legal Services (First Respondent)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Second Respondent)
Bartier Perry (Third Respondent)

File Number(s): 40931 of 2011

Judgment

Hurstville City Council…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NSWLEC 196
Decision Date: 24 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marroun v Roads and Maritime Services involved the applicant, Marroun, contesting the decision of the First, Second, and Third Respondents, which pertained to the revocation of his driver's licence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue that the court had to address was whether the decisions made by the respondents were lawful, justified, and in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the revocation of driver's licences.

The court had to determine whether the respondents had acted within their legal authority when they revoked the applicant's driver's licence. This involved an examination of whether the revocation was a proportionate response to the alleged breaches of the Road Transport Act. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness, including the right to be heard and to respond to the allegations against him. Additionally, the court assessed whether the respondents' decisions were rational and based on the relevant evidence and applicable laws.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the respondents had acted within their statutory powers and that the revocation of the applicant's licence was justified. The court held that the respondents had followed the correct procedures and provided the applicant with adequate opportunities to be heard. The evidence supported the respondents' findings that the applicant's conduct warranted the revocation of his licence. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's claims and upheld the respondents' decisions.

The Court orders the Applicant to pay the costs of the First, Second and Third Respondents as agreed or assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders the Applicant to pay the costs of the First, Second and Third Respondents as agreed or assessed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Hurstville City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 196
Hearing dates:	Written submissions
Decision date:	24 August 2012
Before:	Pain J
Decision:	The Court orders the Applicant to pay the costs of the First, Second and Third Respondents as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:	COSTS - exercise of discretion to award costs where local council unsuccessful in judicial review proceedings challenging concept plan approval under Part 3A - while public interest proceedings, lack of "something more" to justify departure from usual costs rule - interest not payable on award of costs - submitting party's costs are payable
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 11, s 98 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Pt 3A, s 123 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 cl 8F Land Acquisition (Just Terms) Compensation Act 1991 Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 r 4.2(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 1.7, Sch 2, Pt 42 r 42.1
Cases Cited:	Amalgamated Holdings Ltd v North Sydney Council [2012] NSWLEC 138 Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] NSWLEC 59; 173 LGERA 280 Delta Electricity v Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc [2010] NSWCA 263; (2010) 176 LGERA 424 Drummond and Rosen Pty Ltd v Easey (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 331 Engadine Area Traffic Action Group Inc v Sutherland Shire Council (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 434; (2004) 136 LGERA 365 Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 56; (2007) 234 CLR 52 Hastings Point Progress Association Inc v Tweed Shire Council (No 3) [2010] NSWCA 39; (2010) 172 LGERA 157 Hillig v Darkinjung Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 147 Hurstville City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure [2012] NSWLEC 134 John Williams Neighbourhood Group Inc v Minister for Planning [2011] NSWLEC 100 Leda Pty Ltd v Weerden (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 283 Lahoud v Lahoud [2006] NSWSC 126 Manns v Attorney General of New South Wales (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 325 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 96 LGERA 173 Robb Evans of Robb Evans & Associates v European Bank Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 170 Sarkar and Islam v Everest Property Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 305 Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Planning (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 96 Taylor v Port Macquarie-Hastings Council [2010] NSWLEC 153; 175 LGERA 189 Ying v Song [2011] NSWSC 618
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Hurstville City Council (Applicant) Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (First Respondent) Earljest Pty Limited (Second Respondent) Henlia No. 24 Pty Limited (Third Respondent)
Representation:	Mr P Rigg (solicitor) (Applicant) Mr A Shearer (First Respondent) Mr J Doyle (Second Respondent) Mr T Robertson SC with Mr J Lazarus (Third Respondent) Norton Rose Australia (Applicant) Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Legal Services (First Respondent) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie (Second Respondent) Bartier Perry (Third Respondent)
File Number(s):	40931 of 2011