Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: May v Northern Beaches Council and Anor (No 3) [2023] NSWLEC 72 Hearing dates: On the papers (written submissions filed 11 April, 17 April, 1 May and 23 May 2023) Date of orders: 12 July 2023 Decision date: 12 July 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Robson J Decision: See orders at [66]
Catchwords: COSTS — Costs orders on successful motions to strike out proceedings sought against litigant in person — General rule that costs follow the event — Whether departure from usual costs rule justified — Whether litigation can be characterised as public interest litigation — Whether indemnity costs orders should be made — Whether more than one set of costs should be ordered
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW), ss 11, 98
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW), cl 100
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 69
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW), rr 4.1, 4.2
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Sch 2, rr 1.7, 13.4, 42.1, 42.2, 42.5, 42.7, 59.10
Cases Cited: Bhagat v Royal & Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Limited [2000] NSWSC 159
Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403; [1994] HCA 14
Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Limited(No 3) [2010] NSWLEC 59; (2010) 173 LGERA 280
Engadine Area Traffic Action Group Inc v Sutherland Shire Council (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 434; (2004) 136 LGERA 365
Fiduciary v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 1; [2002] NSWSC 432
Hastings Point Progress Association Inc v Tweed Shire Council (No 3) [2010] NSWCA 39; (2010) 172 LGERA 157
Kindimindi Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Cove Council [2006] NSWLEC 17; (2006) 143 LGERA 268
Local Democracy Matters Incorporated v Infrastructure NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 118
May v Northern Beaches Council (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 7
Muswellbrook Shire Council v Hunter Valley Energy Coal Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 216; (2019) 372 ALR 695
Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11
People for the Plains Incorporated v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 157
Quach v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 311
Statham v Shephard (No 2) (1974) 23 FLR 244
Westfield Management Limited v Direct Factory Outlets Homebush Pty Limited (No 4) [2005] NSWLEC 168
Category: Costs Parties: Stephen May (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (First Respondent)
Paul Wilhelm (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S May, self-represented (Applicant)
J Ede, solicitor (First Respondent)
M Harker (Second Respondent)
Self-represented (Applicant)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (First Respondent)
Clyde & Co (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/00286184 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
In May v Northern Beaches Council (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 7 (‘May (No 2)’) I determined two notices of motion filed 4 and 7 March 2022 by Northern Beaches Council (‘Council’) and Paul Wilhelm…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read May v Northern Beaches Council (No 3) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 72
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the notice was lawfully served and whether the plaintiff was afforded procedural fairness. The court had to consider the statutory requirements for serving such notices and whether the Council's actions complied with these requirements. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiff was given an adequate opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the notice.
The court found that the notice was indeed validly served and that the plaintiff was afforded procedural fairness. The court held that the Council had complied with the statutory requirements for serving the notice and that the plaintiff was given a reasonable opportunity to address the concerns. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and the evidence presented by both parties. The plaintiff's challenge to the notice's validity was ultimately dismissed.
The court's orders, detailed at [66], included dismissing the plaintiff's claim and awarding costs to the Council. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's arguments and upheld the Council's right to serve the notice as per the statutory provisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [66]
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.