[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Environment Resources and Development Court of South Australia Decisions

You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> Environment Resources and Development Court of South Australia Decisions >> 2004 >> [2004] SAERDC 49

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Zuppa v Town of Gawler [2004] SAERDC 49 (25 June 2004)

Last Updated: 16 November 2004

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment 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 in which it was generated.

ZUPPA v TOWN OF GAWLER

Judgment of Commissioner Hodgson

25 June 2004

PROCEDURE - COSTS

Application for adjournment of hearing - adjournment granted - foreshadowed application for costs - appeal subsequently withdrawn - no order as to costs.

Development Court Act , referred to.

ZUPPA v TOWN OF GAWLER
[2004] SAERDC 49

(ERDC No. 19 of 2004)

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1 This is an application for costs, made in the following circumstances. The Appellant, Michael Zuppa, appealed to this Court against a decision of the Town of Gawler. The matter was not resolved at conference, and was listed for hearing on 10 May 2004. On 3 May the Appellant sought an adjournment of the hearing. On 6 May a Directions Hearing was held in chambers, as a result of which the hearing was adjourned to 26 June. At the Directions Hearing Mr W Webster for the respondent, foreshadowed a claim for costs thrown away in the amount of $1,500, in the event that the adjournment application was allowed.
2 On 10 May the Appellant withdrew his appeal. Counsel for the respondent advised the Court that the claim for costs was maintained, but that there would be no submissions on the question additional to those made at the Directions Hearing.
3 In all the circumstances I have decided to decline the application for costs. The early withdrawal of the appeal means that the costs incurred by the Respondent were the same as those it would have incurred had the matter gone to hearing on the original listed date. Had the matter come on for hearing on the adjourned date, clearly there would have been costs thrown away, and an argument for costs in those circumstances would have been more likely to succeed.
4 Leave to withdraw is granted.
5 There will be no order as to costs.

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAERDC/2004/49.html

1	This is an application for costs, made in the following circumstances. The Appellant, Michael Zuppa, appealed to this Court against a decision of the Town of Gawler. The matter was not resolved at conference, and was listed for hearing on 10 May 2004. On 3 May the Appellant sought an adjournment of the hearing. On 6 May a Directions Hearing was held in chambers, as a result of which the hearing was adjourned to 26 June. At the Directions Hearing Mr W Webster for the respondent, foreshadowed a claim for costs thrown away in the amount of $1,500, in the event that the adjournment application was allowed.
2	On 10 May the Appellant withdrew his appeal. Counsel for the respondent advised the Court that the claim for costs was maintained, but that there would be no submissions on the question additional to those made at the Directions Hearing.
3	In all the circumstances I have decided to decline the application for costs. The early withdrawal of the appeal means that the costs incurred by the Respondent were the same as those it would have incurred had the matter gone to hearing on the original listed date. Had the matter come on for hearing on the adjourned date, clearly there would have been costs thrown away, and an argument for costs in those circumstances would have been more likely to succeed.
4	Leave to withdraw is granted.
5	There will be no order as to costs.