Kentgreen Dural Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council

As I understood the Applicant's submission, the principles that I have recited are not disputed, although Counsel for the Applicant emphasised the necessity to examine the facts of the particular case, and was not surprisingly wary of any notion of " presumptive entitlement ".

In this respect, the Applicant relies upon various conversations between representatives of the Landowner of the appeal site and the Council that took place in December 1999 and January 2000, involving representations made by the Landowner for the rezoning of the appeal site so as to permit dwelling house development thereon.

The only evidence of these conversations is provided in the affidavit of Mr Vince Lopresti, a Director of the Landowner, sworn 27 March 2000.

Mr Lopresti was not required for cross-examination and there was no evidence in rebuttal. In these circumstances, I accept his account of the conversations (noting that I had overruled various objections to this affidavit raised by the Council's Solicitor).

Mr Lopresti's affidavit establishes the following facts:

1. He was well aware of the Applicant's appeal to this Court. However, it had always been the Landowner's preference to develop the appeal site for residential purposes rather than for the purposes sought by the Applicant.
2. The Applicant proposed to purchase the appeal site, subject to the grant of the development consent that it had sought and subject to the Landowner underwriting the Applicant's costs of the appeal to this Court.
3. In December 1999, he and a fellow director met with the Mayor of the Council and a Council servant, Mr Dennis Moore, to inquire whether the Council would support a rezoning of the appeal site (and an adjoining lot also owned by the Company) to enable a dwelling-house to be erected on each lot.
4. At the meeting, the Council was furnished with advice obtained from its Solicitors concerning the proposed rezoning.
5. Mr Lopresti referred to the Applicant's appeal "to be heard in a month's time" and said that if the rezoning issue could be resolved "without going to Court, we would be happy to discuss it".
6. The fellow director said to the Mayor: "we are quite prepared to defer the Court matter until the end of March and give Council an opportunity to look into it".
7. Mr Lopresti formed the impression that the Mayor and Mr Moore had agreed to defer the proceedings.
8. In or about the third week in January 2000, the Landowner spoke to Mr Moore who told him that he was preparing a report to the Council on the rezoning application, but that it would be difficult to have it ready for the Council's first meeting to be held in February.
9. Some time after the third week in January 2000, the Landowner again spoke to Mr Moore, who stated "that the Council would be willing to consent to deferring the hearing" of the Applicant's appeal but that a barrister had been briefed and his fees would have to be paid. The Landowner had agreed to pay the fees.
10. Thereafter, the Landowner had spoken to the Applicant who had agreed to discontinue the proceedings.

The question that arises is whether this evidence, justifies a finding that, in the circumstances of the case, the discontinuance of the proceedings a day or two before the fixed hearing date should he held not to constitute "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of the Court's Practice Direction.

In my judgment, it does not, principally because it reveals absolutely nothing of the Applicant's conduct in the litigation. Of that conduct, the only evidence is that earlier recited in the litigation history, namely the Applicant's Solicitors instituted the proceedings on 24 September 1999 and appeared at the two callovers before the Registrar in October and November 1999, securing on the latter occasion the hearing dates for the appeal on 7, 8 and 9 February 2000. Nothing else is revealed of the Applicant's conduct in the litigation until the Applicant's Solicitors filed the Notice of Discontinuance on 4 February 2000.

What Mr Lopresti's evidence does establish is what the Landowner was doing in the relevant period coinciding with the litigation history, in its attempts to secure a rezoning of the appeal site (and other adjoining lands owned by the Landowner) by its representations made to the Council.

Significantly, Mr Lopresti's affidavit does not reveal whether the Council was informed (i) that the Landowner was underwriting the Applicant's appeal; and (ii) that the Landowner preferred the rezoning of the appeal, to the development of the appeal site by the school and church building. More significantly, Mr Lopresti's affidavit does not reveal any involvement by the Applicant in the discussions within the Council or any dealings between the Landowner and the Applicant during the litigation history, other than the discussion at the end of January 2000 in which the Applicant agreed to discontinue the proceedings. In all this, the status and future of the pending appeal remains a mystery, and invites the inquiry whether the appeal was genuine or merely seemed as an advantage to the Landowner in its rezoning application.

Finally, does Mr Lopresti's affidavit reveal any disentitling misconduct by the Council in the pending litigation? In my opinion, no misconduct is revealed. Rather, the evidence establishes no more than - (i.) an acknowledgment by the Mayor at the December 1999 meeting of the Landowner's statement that "it was prepared to defer the Court matter until the end of March….."; and (ii.) a statement made by Mr Moore in the conversation held at the end of January 2000 that the Council would be prepared to consent to a "deferring of the hearing" provided that the Landowner pay the brief fee for Council's barrister.

The second mentioned fact, in my judgment necessarily implies that the first mentioned fact did not involve any agreement by the Council to defer the hearing. If it did, why was it necessary for the Landowner to enquire of Mr Moore at the end of January 2000 whether Council was prepared to defer the hearing, and why was it necessary to the Landowner to agree to pay the fee of Council's briefed barrister?

Whatever impression Mr Lopresti may have formed of what transpired at the meeting with the Council's Mayor in December 1999 (and whenever that impression was formed) it could not have been the fact that at that meeting the Council had agreed to the Court hearing being deferred. (Had the Council so agreed, why would it not have instructed its Solicitors to defer all preparation on the case?)

Once it is established that it was not until the end of January 2000 that the Landowner sought the Council's consent to defer the hearing fixed just one week distant, at a time when the Council had not only briefed a barrister, but had served its expert reports in the proceedings, it simply cannot be concluded that the Council had acted unreasonably in the litigation or had taken any action or initiative which had effectively supervened the proceeding. Add to this finding, the fact that the next known action by either the Landowner or the Applicant, was the unannounced filing of the Notice of Discontinuance of the proceedings (itself inconsistent with the agreement that the Landowner had sought from the Council to defer the Court hearing) and the overwhelming conclusion is that the Applicant (doubtless highly influenced by the Landowner) voluntarily chose to discontinue the proceedings but a few days before the fixed hearing, and at a time when the Council had already incurred costs in preparing for the case.

In these circumstances, the Applicant has not established any reason or justification to depart from the ordinary costs consequence of a discontinuance of proceedings a day or two before the fixed hearing date without the consent of the other party, which was prepared for the case.

For all the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the Council is entitled to costs pursuant to the Rules of Court Pt 11 r 5(2), namely its costs reasonably incurred prior to the discontinuance.

Additionally, the Council is entitled to its costs of its present Motion which has been unsuccessfully resisted by the Applicant.

Accordingly, I make the following orders:

1. Pursuant to the Rules of Court, Pt 11 r 5, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent, being the costs reasonably incurred by the Respondent in the proceedings prior to the discontinuance of the proceedings on 4 February 2000, in the sum agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed.
2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs on the Motion, in the sum agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.

(ii.) a statement made by Mr Moore in the conversation held at the end of January 2000 that the Council would be prepared to consent to a "deferring of the hearing" provided that the Landowner pay the brief fee for Council's barrister.

27. The second mentioned fact, in my judgment necessarily implies that the first mentioned fact did not involve any agreement by the Council to defer the hearing. If it did, why was it necessary for the Landowner to enquire of Mr Moore at the end of January 2000 whether Council was prepared to defer the hearing, and why was it necessary to the Landowner to agree to pay the fee of Council's briefed barrister?

28. Whatever impression Mr Lopresti may have formed of what transpired at the meeting with the Council's Mayor in December 1999 (and whenever that impression was formed) it could not have been the fact that at that meeting the Council had agreed to the Court hearing being deferred. (Had the Council so agreed, why would it not have instructed its Solicitors to defer all preparation on the case?)

29. Once it is established that it was not until the end of January 2000 that the Landowner sought the Council's consent to defer the hearing fixed just one week distant, at a time when the Council had not only briefed a barrister, but had served its expert reports in the proceedings, it simply cannot be concluded that the Council had acted unreasonably in the litigation or had taken any action or initiative which had effectively supervened the proceeding. Add to this finding, the fact that the next known action by either the Landowner or the Applicant, was the unannounced filing of the Notice of Discontinuance of the proceedings (itself inconsistent with the agreement that the Landowner had sought from the Council to defer the Court hearing) and the overwhelming conclusion is that the Applicant (doubtless highly influenced by the Landowner) voluntarily chose to discontinue the proceedings but a few days before the fixed hearing, and at a time when the Council had already incurred costs in preparing for the case.

30. In these circumstances, the Applicant has not established any reason or justification to depart from the ordinary costs consequence of a discontinuance of proceedings a day or two before the fixed hearing date without the consent of the other party, which was prepared for the case.

31. For all the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the Council is entitled to costs pursuant to the Rules of Court Pt 11 r 5(2), namely its costs reasonably incurred prior to the discontinuance.

32. Additionally, the Council is entitled to its costs of its present Motion which has been unsuccessfully resisted by the Applicant.

1. Pursuant to the Rules of Court, Pt 11 r 5, the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent, being the costs reasonably incurred by the Respondent in the proceedings prior to the discontinuance of the proceedings on 4 February 2000, in the sum agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed.

2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs on the Motion, in the sum agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed.