Steel Supplies Bega v Shoveller [No.2]

Steel Supplies Bega was the plaintiff and Shoveller was the defendant in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the terms of a lease of commercial property, and the court was asked to determine how the lessee should be ordered to comply with a development consent, and whether the grant of a new lease should be conditional on compliance with the development consent. The case was also concerned with costs, specifically whether the party seeking relief against forfeiture should pay the opponent's costs, and whether the duration and costs of the hearing had been extended unreasonably.

The court was required to decide whether the order for the lessee to comply with the development consent should be absolute, or whether it should be conditional on the grant of a new lease. The court also had to consider whether the party seeking relief against forfeiture should pay the opponent's costs, and whether the duration and costs of the hearing had been extended unreasonably. The court had to balance the factors relevant to costs, including the duration and complexity of the hearing, and the success of the parties.

The court held that the order for the lessee to comply with the development consent should be conditional on the grant of a new lease, as this would ensure that the lessee had the opportunity to comply with the development consent before the new lease was granted. The court also held that the party seeking relief against forfeiture should not be ordered to pay the opponent's costs, as the duration and costs of the hearing had been extended unreasonably. The court found that the party seeking relief against forfeiture had been substantially successful, and that the opponent had acted unreasonably in extending the duration and costs of the hearing. The court also found that the balancing factors relevant to costs favoured the party seeking relief against forfeiture.

The court ordered that the order for the lessee to comply with the development consent should be conditional on the grant of a new lease. The court also ordered that the party seeking relief against forfeiture should not be ordered to pay the opponent's costs.