Commissioner for Fair Trading v Edward Lees Imports Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAP 222

Commissioner for Fair Trading v Edward Lees Imports Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAP 222

The Appeal Panel was not satisfied that there were special circumstances warranting departure from the usual position under s 60(1) that each party pay their own costs. The Costs Appeal was not wholly untenable or misconceived, did not unfairly disadvantage ELI or add significant cost or delay, and alleged conduct at first instance was not a basis for compensating costs of the appeal. A hearing was unnecessary and would add expense.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs in Respect of an Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on the Papers
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed; hearing of the costs application dispensed with.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'special Circumstances Under S 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)' 'dispensing With a Hearing' 'ncat Appeal Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['costs' 'special Circumstances Under S 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)' 'dispensing With a Hearing' 'ncat Appeal Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs in Respect of an Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a hearing of the application for costs should be dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013.' 'Whether special circumstances existed under s 60 of the NCAT Act to justify an order for costs in respect of the Costs Appeal.' 'Whether the Costs Appeal had no tenable basis in fact or law, was misconceived, unfairly disadvantaged ELI, or significantly added cost, delay or time to the proceedings.' 'Whether alleged conduct of the Commissioner in the proceedings at first instance was relevant to a costs order for the Costs Appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel was not satisfied that there were special circumstances warranting departure from the usual position under s 60(1) that each party pay their own costs. The Costs Appeal was not wholly untenable or misconceived, did not unfairly disadvantage ELI or add significant cost or delay, and alleged conduct at first instance was not a basis for compensating costs of the appeal. A hearing was unnecessary and would add expense.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed; hearing of the costs application dispensed with.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013, a hearing of the application for costs in respect of appeal AP 19/01019 is dispensed with.' 'The application for costs is dismissed']