Miljus v Guests Cakes & Pies Pty Ltd [2011] NSWADT 220

Miljus v Guests Cakes & Pies Pty Ltd [2011] NSWADT 220

It was fair for the Respondents to pay the Applicant's reasonable party/party costs for preparation for and attendance at the directions hearings on 30 September 2010, 28 October 2010 and 18 November 2010 because those costs were unlikely to have been incurred if the Respondents had taken reasonable steps to properly consider and define their case and comply with Tribunal directions. The Respondents' self-representation did not justify shifting those costs to the Applicant, but the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Respondents otherwise prolonged the proceedings or engaged in other conduct justifying a broader costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Retail Leases Division Proceedings / Following Principal Decision on 14 August 2011
Outcome
Costs application allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'party/party Costs' 'non Compliance With Tribunal Directions' 'self Represented Parties' 'unconscionable Conduct Claim Struck Out']
['administrative Law' 'retail Leases' 'costs'] ['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'party/party Costs' 'non Compliance With Tribunal Directions' 'self Represented Parties' 'unconscionable Conduct Claim Struck Out']

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

Costs Application in Retail Leases Division Proceedings / Following Principal Decision on 14 August 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair under section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to order the Respondents to pay any of the Applicant's costs." "Whether the Respondents' failure to comply with Tribunal directions and their unconscionable conduct claim caused unnecessary disadvantage to the Applicant." 'Whether the Respondents unreasonably prolonged the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair for the Respondents to pay the Applicant's reasonable party/party costs for preparation for and attendance at the directions hearings on 30 September 2010, 28 October 2010 and 18 November 2010 because those costs were unlikely to have been incurred if the Respondents had taken reasonable steps to properly consider and define their case and comply with Tribunal directions. The Respondents' self-representation did not justify shifting those costs to the Applicant, but the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Respondents otherwise prolonged the proceedings or engaged in other conduct justifying a broader costs order.

Court Disposition

Costs application allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['The Respondents are to pay the costs of the Applicant relating to preparation for and attendance at directions hearings on 30 September 2010, 28 October 2010 and 18 November 2010 upon a party/party basis, as agreed or assessed.']