Jafari v Lituma Pty Limited (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 225

Jafari v Lituma Pty Limited (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 225

The applicant's conduct did not constitute 'special circumstances' as she acted reasonably and immediately upon being made aware of the location of the original Bank Guarantee, therefore costs could not be awarded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Following an Interim Order Application / Decision on Costs Application
Outcome
respondent's application for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
['retail Leases' 'costs']
['property' 'commercial'] ['retail Leases' 'costs']

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

Application for Costs Following an Interim Order Application / Decision on Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the conduct of the applicant in failing to promptly provide the original Bank Guarantee constituted 'special circumstances' warranting an award of costs under s.88(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's conduct did not constitute 'special circumstances' as she acted reasonably and immediately upon being made aware of the location of the original Bank Guarantee, therefore costs could not be awarded.

Court Disposition

respondent's application for costs dismissed

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application for costs of the applicant's application for an urgent interim order is dismissed"]