Glen Eira City Council v Wayne Walker [1999] VSC 2

Supreme Court of Victoria|1999-01-08|Before: Beach J

The application for injunctive relief is refused. I order that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the application.

MR KUHN: Your Honour, I appear on behalf of the first defendant. The first defendant does not seek its costs.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, very well. I will amend the order so that the order in respect of costs is the costs of the defendants other than the first-named defendant.

MR CRUTCHFIELD: Your Honour, is there any point in making a submission in relation to the costs for the Minister on the basis they are really in a position analogous to that of an intervener in these proceedings.

HIS HONOUR: I consider the Minister is entitled to his costs. The order will stand that the plaintiff is to pay the costs of the defendants, other than the first-named defendant, of the proceedings.

In the second place, it is argued that s.9 of the Act applies only to situations where disputes or differences arise between two councils exercising or purporting to exercise their rights, powers or authorities in accordance with the applicable legislation. In that regard, reliance was placed on The Attorney-General v. The President, Etc, of the Shire of Preston (1902) 28 V.L.R. 402, Municipal Council of Ryde v. Municipal Council of Hunters Hill (1927) 27 S.R.(N.S.W.) 459 and State Electricity Commission of Victoria v. The Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of South Melbourne [1968] HCA 49; (1968) 118 C.L.R. 504.

At a glance