Young v King (No 8)

Case [2015] NSWLEC 187

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Young v King (No. 8) [2015] NSWLEC 187
Hearing dates:30 November 2015
Date of orders: 01 December 2015
Decision date: 01 December 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Sheahan J
Decision:

The Applicant’s claims for costs against the 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 18th Respondents are summarily dismissed, and, the Applicant is to pay those respondents’ costs on their motions for summary dismissal.

Catchwords: COSTS: Applications for summary dismissal of costs claims made by an unsuccessful party against a number of non-parties.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014
Married Persons (Equality of Status) Act 1996
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Bankstown City Council v Mohamad El Dana [2009] NSWLEC 68
Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; 162 CLR 1
FPM Constructions v City of Blue Mountains [2005] NSWCA 340
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404
Harrison v Schipp [2001] NSWCA 13
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 300
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Re Felicity, FM v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (No 4) [2015] NSWCA 19
Reichel v Magrath [1889) 14 APP CAS 665
Rippon v Chilcotin Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 198
Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson [1994] QB 179
University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) [1985] HCA 28; 60 ALR 68
Young v Hones [2014] NSWCA 337
Young v Hones (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1429
Young v King [2004] NSWLEC 93
Young v King (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 236
Young v King (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 111
Yu v Cao [2015] NSWCA 276
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Margo Young (Applicant)
Brendan King (First respondent)
Kristina King (Second respondent)
Jason Hones (Third respondent)
Hones Lawyers (Fourth respondent)
Ian Hemmings (Fifth respondent)
Stephen Perrens (Sixth respondent)
Hughes Trueman Pty Limited (Seventh respondent)
Warwick Davies (Eighth respondent)
Stephen Noel Griffiths (Ninth respondent)
Robert Charles Springett (Tenth respondent)
Michael Brearley (Eleventh respondent)
Ross Fraser (Twelfth respondent)
Tony Tuxworth (Thirteenth respondent)
Copeland Lethbridge (Fourteenth respondent)
Bee & Lethbridge Pty Limited (Fifteenth respondent)
Geoff Goodyer (Sixteenth respondent)
Victor Schubert (Seventeenth respondent)
Warringah Shire Council (Eighteenth respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:

 

Mr L Muriniti, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr M Wright, barrister (First & second respondents)
Mr W McManus, barrister (Third & fourth respondents)
Mr D Miller, SC, with Ms A Horvath, barrister (Fifth respondent)
Mr S Gray, barrister (Sixth & seventh respondent)
Mr T Faulkner, SC (Eighth respondent)
Mr P Carr, barrister (Ninth respondent)
Litigant in person (Tenth respondent)
Mr B Lim, barrister (Eleventh respondent)
Ms J Reid, barrister (Twelfth respondent)
Dr S Berveling, barrister (Thirteenth respondent)
Mr E Cox, barrister (Fourteenth, fifteenth &…

Continue reading Young v King (No 8)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Young v King (No 8) [2015] NSWLEC 187
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Young v King (No 8), the dispute involved multiple parties, with Young as the primary applicant seeking various claims against a number of respondents. The court had to address issues of costs and summary dismissal, particularly in relation to the application by the applicant to recover costs from specified respondents. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the applicant's claims for costs against certain respondents were valid and, if not, to assess the appropriateness of summary dismissal and the allocation of costs.

The legal issues at the heart of this matter revolved around the principles governing the recovery of costs in litigation, the criteria for summary dismissal, and the circumstances under which costs should be awarded to a party that successfully defends against a claim. The court had to consider the applicant's application in light of the procedural fairness and the applicable legal standards, assessing whether the application was frivolous or vexatious, which would warrant the imposition of costs against the applicant.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the applicant's claims for costs against the listed respondents were not well-founded. The court determined that the claims were either without merit or did not satisfy the necessary legal criteria. The court found that the application was not only unsuccessful but also lacked a reasonable prospect of success, which justified the summary dismissal. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondents who had successfully moved for summary dismissal, reflecting the court's assessment of the overall conduct of the litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicant’s claims for costs against the 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 18th Respondents are summarily dismissed, and, the Applicant is to pay those respondents’ costs on their motions for summary dismissal.

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.