The Owners-Strata Plan 6636 v Bickley

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners-Strata Plan 6636 v Bickley [2015] NSWLEC 113
Hearing dates:10 July 2015
Date of orders: 13 July 2015
Decision date: 13 July 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of proceedings as agreed or assessed, including the costs of the notice of motion.

Catchwords: COSTS: whether fair and reasonable that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs – whether respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct during the proceedings – whether costs should be awarded in a fix sum or as agreed or assessed .
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)
Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, rr 3.7
Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Cases Cited: Agonic Holdings Pty Ltd v Lithgow City Council [2009] NSWLEC 34
Arden Anglican School v Hornsby Shire Council [2008] NSWLEC 103; (2008) 158 LGERA 224
Barich v Parramatta City Council [2015] NSWLEC 98
Broken Hill City Council v Tumanic [2012] NSWLEC 162
Community Association DP270253 v Woollahra Municipal Council [2015] NSWCA 80; (2015) 207 LGERA 268
Harrison v Schipp [2002] NSWCA 213; (2002) 54 NSWLR 738
Port Stephens v Sansom [2007] NSWCA 299; (2007) 156 LGERA 125
Puruse Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2009] NSWLEC 163; (2009) 169 LGERA 85
St Marys Land Limited v Valuer-General of New South Wales [2011] NSWLEC 2
Thaina Town (On Goulburn) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney Council [2007] NSWCA 300; (2007) 156 LGERA 150
The Owners-Strata Plan No 6636 v Bickley [2015] NSWLEC 1109
Tou v Maskiney [2010] NSWLEC 105
Woollahra Municipal Council v Tilley [2010 NSWLEC 75
Category:Costs
Parties: The Owners-Strata Plan 6636 (Applicant)
Leslie Bickley (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C Prestipino, solicitor (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Jane Crittenden Lawyers (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s):20031 of 2015

EX TEMPORE Judgment

The Successful Applicant in a Tree Dispute Seeks Its Costs

  1. By notice of motion filed on 8 May 2015, the applicant in Class 2 proceedings under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, The Owners-Strata Plan 6636, seeks its costs of the proceedings before the Commissioner from the respondent, Mr Leslie Bickley.

  2. In all proceedings in Class 2 of the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court is not to make an order for the payment of costs unless the Court considers the making of an order as to the whole or any part of the costs are fair and reasonable in the circumstances (r 3.7(2) of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007, “the LEC Rules”).

  3. Circumstances in which the Court might consider the making of a costs order to be fair and reasonable include those contained in r 3.7(3) of the LEC Rules:

(3)   Circumstances in which the Court might consider the making of a costs order to be fair and reasonable include (without limitation) the following:

(a)   that the proceedings involve, as a central issue, a question of law, a question of fact…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Owners-Strata Plan 6636 v Bickley 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
[2015] NSWLEC 113
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Owners-Strata Plan 6636 sued Bickley in relation to the ownership of certain property. The dispute involved the interpretation of a strata plan and a unit title, as well as the applicability of certain legislation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether certain property belonged to the applicant or the respondent. This involved an interpretation of the strata plan and unit title, as well as an examination of the relevant legislation. The court found that the property in question did not belong to the respondent and ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of proceedings as agreed or assessed, including the costs of the notice of motion. The court relied on a number of legal principles in reaching its decision, including the interpretation of the strata plan and unit title, and the application of relevant legislation. The court found that the property in question was not owned by the respondent and that the applicant was entitled to recover its costs from the respondent. The orders of the court were that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of proceedings as agreed or assessed, including the costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of proceedings as agreed or assessed, including the costs of the notice of motion.

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.