G & M Dawson Pty Limited v Cripps & Ors (No 3) (RLD) [2005] NSWADTAP 24

G & M Dawson Pty Limited v Cripps & Ors (No 3) (RLD) [2005] NSWADTAP 24

The Appeal Panel held that 'special circumstances' justifying an award of costs under s 88 of the ADT Act generally must relate to conduct within the proceedings and not to conduct giving rise to the litigation, and that the applicants and third appellant had not demonstrated 'special circumstances' on that basis. The correct approach to interest is to compensate for deprivation of the damages sum from the date the loss was suffered, which in this case was 28 June 2002.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Costs and Interest
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
['costs Orders in Tribunal Proceedings' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'interest on Damages' 'interpretation of Retail Leases Act 1994']
['administrative Law' 'property Law' 'retail Leases' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['costs Orders in Tribunal Proceedings' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'interest on Damages' 'interpretation of Retail Leases Act 1994']

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

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Costs and Interest

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether 'special circumstances' for costs under s 88(1) Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 in the context of Retail Leases Act 1994 proceedings must relate only to conduct within the litigation" 'Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing costs to the applicant or third respondent' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding interest from 28 June 2002 on the damages sum']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that 'special circumstances' justifying an award of costs under s 88 of the ADT Act generally must relate to conduct within the proceedings and not to conduct giving rise to the litigation, and that the applicants and third appellant had not demonstrated 'special circumstances' on that basis. The correct approach to interest is to compensate for deprivation of the damages sum from the date the loss was suffered, which in this case was 28 June 2002.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the Appellants in the Third Appeal to appeal out of time' 'Each of the three appeals is dismissed' 'No orders for costs on these appeals']