Ersoy v Bonzalie [2010] NSWADT 106

Ersoy v Bonzalie [2010] NSWADT 106

There were no special circumstances in the proceedings to warrant an award of costs as required by s88(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997; both sides had mixed success and their behaviour did not warrant a costs order.

Parties
Applicant/respondent: Aslihan Ersoy; Applicant/respondent: Neslihan Ersoy; Respondent/applicant: Eddie Bonzalie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Retail Leases Dispute / Post Decision Application for Costs
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Application, Special Circumstances, Tribunal Procedure
Costs Retail Leases Costs Application Special Circumstances Tribunal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aslihan Ersoy

Applicant/respondent

Neslihan Ersoy

Applicant/respondent

Eddie Bonzalie

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Retail Leases Dispute / Post Decision Application for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances exist to warrant an order for costs under s88(1) Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

Ratio Decidendi

There were no special circumstances in the proceedings to warrant an award of costs as required by s88(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997; both sides had mixed success and their behaviour did not warrant a costs order.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Application for costs dismissed