Hopkins v Tamworth Regional Council

Additional time to pay

2. Mr Hopkins sought additional time to pay the Council’s costs beyond 28 days without specifying a specific timeframe for doing so. Mr Hopkins suggested that the parties be ordered to agree a timetable to enable him to pay costs as he is of limited means. Such an agreement would allow Mr Hopkins to repay the Council’s costs in staged tranches or, subject to agreement, have them deducted from future income. Mr Hopkins otherwise sought an unspecified extended period to pay the costs. As the Council identified, this made it difficult for them to respond in any meaningful way to a proposal to vary the usual costs order. The Council opposed any extension being given beyond six months. Given the lack of any proposed alternative to the usual costs order which can be assessed I will determine very favourably to Mr Hopkins no obligation to pay any costs for which he is liable will arise for six months from the date of these orders.

Costs of costs argument

3. The Council seeks its costs of the costs argument on an indemnity basis. The Calderbank offer of 16 December 2025 was accepted as a basis for the award of indemnity costs of the substantive proceedings from that date. That finding extends to the costs of the costs hearing. Had Mr Hopkins accepted that offer no further steps would have been required. The Court has power to award such costs, see Maule v Lliparoni [No 2] (2002) 122 LGERA 216; [2002] NSWLEC 140 at [35] citing Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd & Ors (1988) 81 ALRA 397; [1988] FCA 364 at [401].

4. In addition, further actions of Mr Hopkins following the substantive judgment Hopkins v Tamworth Regional Council [2025] NSWLEC 107 before the determination of costs included foreshadowing a public interest argument, later abandoned. Mr Hopkins issued a Notice to Produce to the Council with 12 items sought which were later conceded to be irrelevant (see Mr Hopkins’ submissions dated 19 December 2025). Mr Hopkins filed written submissions on costs that largely sought to relitigate issues already determined by final judgment, much of which was struck out at the costs hearing. As a result of these actions the Council incurred considerable additional expense well beyond what would be reasonably expected to be incurred on a costs hearing. Costs payable on an indemnity basis is justified and appropriate.

5. Mr Hopkins submitted that the costs hearing should not be seen as an extension of the principal hearing. Mr Hopkins did not claim the proceedings were in the public interest at the outset of the costs hearing. The Council was not successful in its application for indemnity costs for the whole proceedings. The Council was partly successful in its claim for indemnity costs from 29 May 2025. The costs of the costs hearing should be apportioned according to the success of the parties meaning a 50/50 split suggesting the appropriate order is that each party pay their own costs. Mr Hopkins conceded that the Council incurred costs in relation to a Notice to Produce he filed on 26 November 2025 which was not ultimately relevant to the costs hearing. Alternatively, the costs of the costs hearing should be on the usual basis.

6. Weighing up the circumstances relied on respectively by the parties, I consider that the Council should have its costs of the costs hearing paid on the usual basis as it was partly successful in its application for indemnity costs and had to incur additional costs in preparation for the costs hearing due to Mr Hopkins’ actions. The necessary threshold for the award of the costs of the costs hearing on an indemnity basis is not made out.

7. In resolving the two remaining issues I am now able to finalise the costs orders in the substantive matter.

Orders

8. The Court orders:

9. Mr Hopkins must pay Tamworth Regional Council’s costs in matter no 2024/420506 up to 29 May 2025 as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis.

10. Mr Hopkins must pay Tamworth Regional Council’s costs in matter no 2024/420506 from 29 May 2025 as agreed or assessed on an indemnity basis.

11. Mr Hopkins must pay the costs of the costs determination in Hopkins v Tamworth Regional Council [2025] NSWLEC 146 as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis.

12. Mr Hopkins’ obligation to pay costs under orders (1), (2) and (3) does not arise for six months from the date of the orders.

**********