Khoury v Kassim [1999] NSWSC 762

Khoury v Kassim [1999] NSWSC 762

The Court refused to order costs against the second defendant or Mr Vardas because the Consumer Claims Tribunal was not a separate legal entity capable of being made subject to a costs order, and a referee exercising tribunal jurisdiction should be treated analogously to a magistrate for costs purposes; the evidence did not show perversity, gross ignorance, corruption, serious misconduct or an astonishing blunder. Applying the ordinary principle that costs follow the event, the first defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, while each party was to bear its own costs of the costs hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Proceedings Seeking Prerogative Relief / Costs Determination After Judgment Quashing the Referee's Decision and Order
Outcome
Application for costs against the second defendant or referee rejected; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings; each party to pay its own costs of the costs hearing; earlier costs order by Dunford J confirmed.
Legal Topics
['natural Justice' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'prerogative Relief' 'costs Against Tribunal Referee' 'statutory Immunity' 'legal Personality of Tribunal']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'consumer Claims Tribunals'] ['natural Justice' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'prerogative Relief' 'costs Against Tribunal Referee' 'statutory Immunity' 'legal Personality of Tribunal']

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

Administrative Law Proceedings Seeking Prerogative Relief / Costs Determination After Judgment Quashing the Referee's Decision and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Consumer Claims Tribunal was a legal entity capable of being sued or made subject to a costs order.' 'Whether a costs order could be made against referee Mr George Vardas after his decision was quashed for denial of natural justice.' 'Whether s 45 of the Consumer Claims Tribunals Act 1987 protected the referee from liability in legal proceedings.' 'Whether common law principles applicable to costs against magistrates applied to referees exercising consumer claims tribunal jurisdiction.' 'What costs order should be made after the plaintiffs succeeded in having the tribunal decision quashed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to order costs against the second defendant or Mr Vardas because the Consumer Claims Tribunal was not a separate legal entity capable of being made subject to a costs order, and a referee exercising tribunal jurisdiction should be treated analogously to a magistrate for costs purposes; the evidence did not show perversity, gross ignorance, corruption, serious misconduct or an astonishing blunder. Applying the ordinary principle that costs follow the event, the first defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, while each party was to bear its own costs of the costs hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for costs against the second defendant or referee rejected; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings; each party to pay its own costs of the costs hearing; earlier costs order by Dunford J confirmed.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings generally." 'Each party is to pay its own costs of 26 July 1999.' "The costs orders are subject to the order made by Dunford J on 8 December 1998 that the plaintiffs pay the first defendant's costs of that day, which was confirmed."]