The Court ordered the Council to recover only 30% of its costs of the judicial review claim, applying a broadbrush approach because it succeeded on only one of six grounds of review — the ground that the Minister lacked power to enter a settlement agreement providing for a subdivision not permitted under planning legislation — and that ground only clearly emerged during the hearing. The Court held that Mr Smith was jointly liable for costs alongside the Minister because he actively resisted the Council's claim and insisted on the subdivision into 15 lots, and apportioned liability equally between them (15% each).
The full text is available to signed-in members.