Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: McAuley v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 133 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 13 August 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 3 Before: Craig J Decision: By consent the Applicant must pay the costs of the proceedings of both the Third and Fourth Respondents, as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords: COSTS - third and fourth respondents successful in the proceedings - costs agreed Cases Cited: McAuley v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel [2013] NSWLEC 125 Category: Costs Parties: Karen Lynette McAuley (Applicant)
North Wish Pty Ltd (Third Respondent)
Adele Dundas Inc (Fourth Respondent)Representation: N/A (Applicant)
N/A (Third and Fourth Respondent)
Fishburn Watson O'Brien Solicitors (Applicant)
Bartier Perry Solicitors (Third and Fourth Respondents)
File Number(s): 41068 of 2012
ex tempore Judgment
Judgment was delivered in this matter on 2 August 2013 (McAuley v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel [2013] NSWLEC 125). As will be apparent the Third and Fourth Respondents to the proceedings were successful.
Observations were made in the judgment as to the potential costs consequences for the Applicant. However, as costs had not been argued in the course of the principal hearing I ordered that costs be reserved. Directions were given for a party seeking an order for costs to provide a short written submission in support of an application.
The parties have now notified my Associate that costs have been agreed. An order in that regard is to be made by consent. In accordance with that agreement I make the following order:
1. By consent the Applicant must pay the costs of the proceedings of both the Third and Fourth Respondents, as agreed or assessed.
**********
- AGLC
- McAuley v Northern Region Joint Regional Planning Panel (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 133
- Case
- [2013] NSWLEC 133
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Planning Panel's decision was legally sound and whether it was made in accordance with the relevant planning laws. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Panel's findings of fact were open to it on the evidence, and whether those findings led to a lawful decision. The court also needed to assess whether the Panel had considered all relevant matters and whether it had given proper weight to the relevant criteria outlined in the Sunshine Coast Regional Planning Scheme.
In examining the evidence and submissions, the court determined that the Planning Panel's findings of fact were indeed open to it based on the evidence presented. The court found that the Panel had considered all relevant matters and had applied the correct legal principles in reaching its decision. The court concluded that the Panel's decision was lawful and that it was not open to the court to interfere with the Panel's decision on the grounds argued by McAuley. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.
In accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties, the applicant was required to pay the costs of the proceedings of both the Third and Fourth Respondents, as agreed or assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
By consent the Applicant must pay the costs of the proceedings of both the Third and Fourth 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.