Page 2881 - Week 09 - Thursday, 27 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They also included that the Territory lacked jurisdiction and thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue orders in relation to design and siting issues.
The lessees also alleged that there were grounds for there to be a reasonable apprehension of bias in the decision of the President of the Tribunal. These grounds were widely canvassed over the two days of the hearings however none could be established to the satisfaction of the court.
Following the awarding of costs to the Territory the ACT Government Solicitor’s Office provided the lessees with an overall bill of $36,762.50 representing the cost incurred by the Territory in defending the case.
The lessees then sought a detailed breakdown of this amount. The ACT Government Solicitors Office referred their file to a costing solicitor to provide this breakdown in taxable form. The consequence of that process was a revision of the costs at the higher sum of $51,113.10.
The lessees then applied to the ACT Supreme Court for the taxation of the costs. The ACT Supreme Court on taxation reduced the Territory’s overall costs to $42,011.19 but allowed the ACT Government Solicitors Office to claim the additional cost of taxation. These costs amounted to $7,258.38 resulting in a revised cost of $49,269.57.
This amount is currently attracting interest at the ACT Supreme Court rate of 11%. The ACT Government Solicitor’s Office is pursuing this debt that is owed by the lessees to the Territory.
(13) Yes. The legal costs were not for the making of the order.
The costs owed by the lessees to the Territory were incurred when the lessees decided to appeal the decision of the Tribunal to the ACT Supreme Court. The majority of the order deals with issues associated with the failure on the part of the lessees to complete building works, which the lessees commenced in 1975.
The costs incurred by the lessees are payable irrespective of compliance or otherwise with the order.
(Copies of the attachments are available at the Chamber Support Office).
Kambah—suburban block, cleaning
(Question No 1678)
Dr Foskey asked the Minister for Planning, upon notice, on 30 August 2007:
(1) In relation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) consent decision Order No. 20022986, dated 10 July 2002, concerning the cleaning up of the suburban block at 54 Morant Circuit, Kambah, on what basis was the AAT consent decisions translated by ACTPLA inspectors into emptying the block of all items in the yard regardless of value or use;
(2) Was the arbitrary nature of the clearance and the lack of consultation with the lessee a breach of the spirit of the AAT consent decision;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .