Blair v The Owners-Strata Plan No 71656 and Mitchell [2016] NSWCATCD 8

Blair v The Owners-Strata Plan No 71656 and Mitchell [2016] NSWCATCD 8

The first respondent's costs submissions were accepted despite any short delay because the delay was not significant, an extension would have been granted if required, and the appellant suffered no prejudice after being allowed to file submissions in reply. The substantive reasons for dismissing the appeal showed that the appeal was at least partly misconceived and lacking in substance: the appellant could not identify power for an Adjudicator to remove a properly appointed strata manager before expiry of the agreement, sought orders outside the appeal or in the nature of a fresh application, and could make no relevant submissions supporting the appeal. Those matters constituted special...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Strata and Community Schemes Costs Application / Costs on the Papers Following Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Costs awarded to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['costs in the Consumer and Commercial Division' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'misconceived or Lacking in Substance Appeal' 'extension of Time for Submissions']
['strata and Community Schemes' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in the Consumer and Commercial Division' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'misconceived or Lacking in Substance Appeal' 'extension of Time for Submissions']

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

Strata and Community Schemes Costs Application / Costs on the Papers Following Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first respondent's costs submissions should be rejected because they were received out of time." 'Whether special circumstances warranted an award of costs under s 60 of the Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether Rule 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 permitted a costs award without special circumstances.' 'Whether the appeal was misconceived or lacking in substance because the Adjudicator and Tribunal lacked power to make the orders sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent's costs submissions were accepted despite any short delay because the delay was not significant, an extension would have been granted if required, and the appellant suffered no prejudice after being allowed to file submissions in reply. The substantive reasons for dismissing the appeal showed that the appeal was at least partly misconceived and lacking in substance: the appellant could not identify power for an Adjudicator to remove a properly appointed strata manager before expiry of the agreement, sought orders outside the appeal or in the nature of a fresh application, and could make no relevant submissions supporting the appeal. Those matters constituted special...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['The appellant is to pay the legal costs of the first respondent on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed pursuant to the Legal Profession Act 2004 or if that is not the appropriate legislation, pursuant to the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014, specifically Part 4.3 Division 7 of the Legal...