The Griffith Hotel Pty Ltd v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority
Case
•
[2021] NSWSC 933
•03 August 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
The Griffith Hotel Pty Ltd v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2021] NSWSC 933
[2021] NSWSC 933
03 August 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Griffith Hotel Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, brought proceedings against the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority, the defendant, seeking relief in the nature of mandamus after their application for the transfer of gaming machine entitlements remained undetermined as of 24 December 2020. The plaintiff's application had been made on 14 May 2020, and they were entitled to the transfer of the gaming machine entitlements. The plaintiff subsequently discontinued the proceedings once the defendant granted the application unconditionally. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs due to the significant delays on the part of the defendant in determining the application, which had been made on notice of the commencement of proceedings.
The court considered whether the plaintiff's application for costs was justified in light of the defendant's delay in determining the application. The court noted that the plaintiff's application had been made on 14 May 2020 and remained undetermined as of 24 December 2020. The plaintiff had subsequently brought proceedings seeking relief in the nature of mandamus, which they discontinued once the defendant granted the application unconditionally. The court found that the defendant had been put on notice of the commencement of proceedings and that there had been significant delays in determining the application, which justified an order for costs in favour of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, subject to the plaintiff providing a detailed bill of costs within 28 days of the date of the judgment. The court emphasised that the order for costs was not intended to punish the defendant but rather to compensate the plaintiff for the delay in determining their application. The order for costs was also intended to encourage the defendant to determine applications in a timely manner in the future.
The court considered whether the plaintiff's application for costs was justified in light of the defendant's delay in determining the application. The court noted that the plaintiff's application had been made on 14 May 2020 and remained undetermined as of 24 December 2020. The plaintiff had subsequently brought proceedings seeking relief in the nature of mandamus, which they discontinued once the defendant granted the application unconditionally. The court found that the defendant had been put on notice of the commencement of proceedings and that there had been significant delays in determining the application, which justified an order for costs in favour of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, subject to the plaintiff providing a detailed bill of costs within 28 days of the date of the judgment. The court emphasised that the order for costs was not intended to punish the defendant but rather to compensate the plaintiff for the delay in determining their application. The order for costs was also intended to encourage the defendant to determine applications in a timely manner in the future.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
4
Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs Pty Ltd v Stack
[2003] NSWCA 302