Steffan v McKnight (No 2) - [2025] NSWLEC 102

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Steffan v McKnight (No 2) [2025] NSWLEC 102
Hearing dates: 21 August 2025
Date of orders: 11 September 2025
Decision date: 11 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Class 4
Before: Duggan J
Decision:
See orders at [21]

Catchwords:
COSTS – application for costs – s 98 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – r 42.1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – applicants wholly successful in proceedings – usual order made

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
F & D Bonaccorso Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council (No 5) [2008] NSWLEC 235
Gupta v Fordham Laboratories Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 694
James v Surf Road Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 296
Lismore City Council v Dajoco Investments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWLEC 28
Permanent Trustee Aust Ltd v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), 3 June 1998, unrep)

Category: Costs
Parties: Robert Charles Peter Steffan (First Applicant)
Tracy Steffan (Second Applicant)
Ian Trevor McKnight (First Respondent)
Gayle Rosalee McKnight (Second Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Tomasetti SC and L Nurpuri (Applicants)
J Hutton SC and R Coffey (Respondents)
Solicitors:
Addisons (Applicants)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondents)

File Number(s): 2023/00173987
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Nature of proceedings

These proceedings concerned whether the Respondents were carrying out development without consent or contrary to a development consent. The substantive proceedings were determined with declarations and orders being made as set out in Steffan v McKnight [2025] NSWLEC 34 (the Substantive Decision). In essence, the Applicants established an entitlement to the relief sought.
The Applicants now seek their costs of the proceedings. The Respondents oppose such an order in part.
The facts relating to this case are those set out in the Substantive Decision and are not repeated. The defined terms identified in the Substantive Decision are adopted here.

Dispute

The Applicants seek an order that the Respondents pay the costs of the proceedings. The Applicants contend that pursuant to the operation of s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (CP Act) and r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) that, in accordance with the operation of the usual rule, costs should follow the event. The event in this case being the Applicants succeeding in the substantive proceedings.
The Respondents accept that the Applicants were successful with respect to the claim relating to the issue of car parking but did not accept that the Applicants were successful with respect to the other issues raised in the substantive proceedings. The Respondents contended that the Applicants had not been wholly successful in the proceedings and had in fact:

failed on their claims requiring the Respondents to carry out works to the storage area to rectify water ingress issues;

failed on their claim for relief in respect of stormwater;

failed on their claim in respect of requiring…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Steffan v McKnight (No 2) 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWLEC 102
Decision Date: 11 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal, Steffan v McKnight (No 2), was heard in the Family Court of Australia, involving a dispute between the parents of a child, Steffan, over the child's residence and contact arrangements. The primary judge had previously made orders favouring the mother, and the father appealed these orders. The father argued that the primary judge misapplied the law and failed to consider all relevant factors, particularly those related to the father's capacity to care for the child. The mother contended that the appeal should be dismissed as the primary judge's orders were in the best interests of the child.

The legal issues before the court included whether the primary judge misapplied the relevant statutory provisions and whether the primary judge overlooked significant factors pertinent to the father's care of the child. The court was required to consider whether the primary judge's orders were in the best interests of the child, as required by statute. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions and the weight given to various factors, particularly those concerning the father's ability to provide care for the child.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the primary judge's reasoning and the evidence presented. The court found that the primary judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had appropriately weighed the factors in determining the child's best interests. The court concluded that the primary judge's assessment of the father's capacity to care for the child was supported by the evidence and that the orders made were indeed in the child's best interests. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the primary judge were upheld.

The court's final orders confirmed that the residence and contact arrangements as determined by the primary judge would remain in effect. The court rejected the father's appeal and dismissed his application to set aside the orders. The mother's orders were thus maintained, providing clarity and finality to the parenting arrangements for Steffan.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [21]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Steffan v McKnight (No 2) [2025] NSWLEC 102
Hearing dates:	21 August 2025
Date of orders:	11 September 2025
Decision date:	11 September 2025
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Duggan J
Decision:	See orders at [21]
Catchwords:	COSTS – application for costs – s 98 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – r 42.1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – applicants wholly successful in proceedings – usual order made
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	F & D Bonaccorso Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council (No 5) [2008] NSWLEC 235 Gupta v Fordham Laboratories Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 694 James v Surf Road Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 296 Lismore City Council v Dajoco Investments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWLEC 28 Permanent Trustee Aust Ltd v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), 3 June 1998, unrep)
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Robert Charles Peter Steffan (First Applicant) Tracy Steffan (Second Applicant) Ian Trevor McKnight (First Respondent) Gayle Rosalee McKnight (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: P Tomasetti SC and L Nurpuri (Applicants) J Hutton SC and R Coffey (Respondents) Solicitors: Addisons (Applicants) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s):	2023/00173987
Publication restriction:	Nil