Monaghan v Holroyd City Council; Holroyd City Council v Monaghan [2009] NSWLEC 112
PARTIES:
The Class 1 matters APPLICANT Peter Monaghan RESPONDENT Holroyd City Council
The Class 4 matter APPLICANT Holroyd City Council FIRST RESPONDENT Peter Monaghan SECOND RESPONDENT MGF Holdings Pty Ltd THIRD RESPONDENT Monaghan & Gleeson Funeral Directors Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER(S):
11315 of 2007; 11316 of 2007; 10574 of 2008; 10575 of 2008; 40122 of 2008
CORAM:
Sheahan J
KEY ISSUES:
COSTS :- related proceedings in classes 1 and 4, alleged illegal use of premises, reasonableness of the conduct of parties and solicitors, "successful" party in litigation, Calderbank principles, indemnity costs
23 February 2009, 27 February 2009 (written submissions), 19 March 2009 (written submissions).
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
8 July 2009
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
Matters 11315 & 11316 of 2007 and 10574 & 10575 of 2008 APPLICANT Mr G McKee, Solicitor of McKees Legal Solutions
RESPONDENT Mr S Kalfas…
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.
Continue reading Monaghan v Holroyd City Council
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Monaghan v Holroyd City Council [2009] NSWLEC 112
Case
[2009] NSWLEC 112
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales heard a series of proceedings involving Mr. Peter Monaghan and the Holroyd City Council, with the primary disputes centering on allegations of illegal use of residential properties for commercial and public worship purposes. The court examined five separate matters, including class 1 and class 4 proceedings, which were interconnected and stemmed from an investigation into Monaghan’s use of his properties. The litigation history was extensive, with numerous applications, appeals, and negotiations between the parties. The court was tasked with determining the costs associated with these proceedings.
The legal issues primarily revolved around the principles of indemnity costs, the application of the Calderbank principles, and the reasonableness of the parties' conduct throughout the litigation. The court considered whether the Council was entitled to costs as the "successful" party, and whether Monaghan’s conduct warranted a costs order against him. The court also scrutinized the conduct of both parties, the effectiveness of settlement offers, and the proportionality of the costs incurred.
The court concluded that the Council was not the successful party in the litigation as a whole, given the concessions it made and the limited advancement of its position through the class 4 proceedings. The court found Monaghan's conduct to be reasonable, particularly in defending against the allegations and challenging the Council’s orders. The unreasonable and disproportionate conduct of the Council in pursuing the class 4 proceedings was highlighted, particularly the unnecessary escalation of costs. The Calderbank offers made by the Council were deemed not to be genuine offers of compromise.
Accordingly, the court ordered that Monaghan be awarded costs in the class 4 proceedings, and that the Council pay Monaghan’s costs for all five applications. This decision underscored the importance of proportionality in costs, the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, and the application of the Calderbank principles in determining indemnity costs.