Background
Sutherland Shire Council commenced Class 4 civil enforcement proceedings in July 2025 against Scott Taylor, a self-represented respondent, seeking compliance with orders made under s 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). Taylor had been accumulating articles and items at his residential property at 31 Sunbury Street, Sutherland since around 2010, with the accumulation spilling onto adjoining public land. Council had worked extensively with Taylor over many years — including affording him significant time and assistance — before resorting to litigation in the public interest to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties.
On 28 May 2026, Pritchard J delivered the substantive judgment (Sutherland Shire Council v Taylor [2026] NSWLEC 64), granting the declaration and compliance orders substantially as sought by Council. Taylor frankly acknowledged his failure to comply and admitted he had a “problem,” particularly when stressed or depressed. The judgment left costs for separate determination, inviting the parties to advise whether they wished to be heard.
Council filed written submissions on 1 June 2026 seeking its costs, including a gross sum costs order under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) calculated at $27,000 (a 15% discount on primary legal costs of $31,851.18). Taylor, who had been hospitalised following a medical emergency on 25 May 2026, appeared at the 10 June 2026 costs listing and indicated financial hardship, relying on collecting bottles and cans to survive week-to-week, though he owns two unencumbered properties.
The Court’s Holding
Pritchard J found that the proceedings were properly brought in the public interest and that Council had conducted them reasonably and with propriety. Applying the general rule under r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that costs follow the event, the Court found no countervailing circumstances — including Taylor’s financial circumstances — that warranted a departure from that rule. Taylor’s ownership of two unencumbered properties undermined his claim of inability to meet a costs order, and there was no evidence of conduct by Council that would justify any different order.
Although Council had initially sought a gross sum costs order, the parties reached agreement during a short adjournment at the hearing: Taylor would pay Council’s costs as agreed or assessed rather than by way of a specified gross sum. The Court accordingly made an order in those terms without needing to determine whether the s 98(4)(c) discretion to award a gross sum would have been appropriate on the facts. The Court noted the relevant principles from Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 governing gross sum orders, including the requirements of fairness, logical basis, and adequate opportunity to be heard, but left their application to this case undecided given the parties’ agreement.
The single order made was that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
Key Takeaways
- In Class 4 Land and Environment Court proceedings, the default costs rule — costs follow the event under r 42.1 UCPR — applies unless there is a positive reason to depart; a respondent’s financial hardship alone, without more, does not displace that rule where the respondent owns unencumbered assets.
- A local council bringing civil enforcement proceedings in the public interest to protect neighbourhood amenity will ordinarily be entitled to its costs when it succeeds, consistent with the compensatory (not punitive) purpose of costs orders confirmed in Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534.
- The power under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 to award a gross sum instead of assessed costs is a useful tool in enforcement proceedings — and courts may apply a discount (here 15% was proposed) — but the power need not be exercised where the parties agree on the costs mechanism.
- Courts will take practical steps to ensure self-represented parties have a genuine opportunity to be heard on costs, including hearing from a respondent who missed the written submissions deadline due to hospitalisation.
Why It Matters
This decision is a useful illustration of how New South Wales courts handle costs in local government enforcement actions against self-represented individuals in financial difficulty. It confirms that the “costs follow the event” presumption is robust in Class 4 proceedings and is not easily displaced by hardship arguments where the unsuccessful party holds unencumbered real property. Practitioners advising councils on enforcement strategy will note that gross sum costs orders remain available and procedurally attractive — avoiding the delay and expense of formal assessment — but that party agreement on an “as agreed or assessed” basis is an acceptable and often pragmatic alternative.
The decision also highlights the Court’s procedural care in ensuring a fair hearing for self-represented parties: Pritchard J adjourned to allow Taylor to confer with Council’s solicitor, ultimately facilitating an agreed costs arrangement that may offer Taylor more flexibility in discharging the liability. This procedural sensitivity, consistent with the overriding purpose provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, is relevant to practitioners navigating enforcement proceedings against vulnerable or unrepresented parties.