SDA Property Nominees Pty Ltd v Scenic Rim Regional Council (No. 2)

SDA Property Nominees Pty Ltd sought an appeal against the deemed refusal of a planning application for short-term disability accommodation, which was lodged under a superseded planning scheme. The appeal was contested by Scenic Rim Regional Council and two co-respondents-by-election. The primary issue was whether the council and the co-respondents-by-election resisted the appeal in a manner that was frivolous or vexatious, and if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to award costs under section 60(1) of the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016. This section allows the court to award costs if the proceedings were "unjustly persisted in." Additionally, the court considered whether the co-respondents-by-election discharged their responsibilities appropriately in the proceeding.

The court found that the co-respondents-by-election did not discharge their responsibilities adequately, and their resistance to the appeal was, in part, frivolous. The court concluded that the council's resistance was not frivolous, but the co-respondents-by-election's resistance was vexatious. The court exercised its discretion to award costs under section 60(1) of the Planning & Environment Court Act 2016. Given the vexatious nature of the co-respondents-by-election's resistance, the court decided to assess costs on an indemnity basis. This means that the co-respondents-by-election would be liable for the full costs of the appeal, including the applicant's costs.

The court made an order for costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis for the co-respondents-by-election. The council's costs were to be assessed on the standard basis. The order was detailed in paragraph [122], which specified the precise costs to be paid by the co-respondents-by-election. The decision highlighted the importance of parties properly discharging their responsibilities in planning appeals and the consequences of vexatious conduct.