Kadsielski v Guca 1 Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 223

Kadsielski v Guca 1 Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 223

Although the applicant's set aside application was misconceived and lacking in substance, costs were refused in the exercise of discretion because the applicant was unrepresented, the Tribunal's ordinary position is that parties bear their own costs and generally conduct their own cases, the presence of an s 60(3) circumstance does not automatically require costs, comparable incompetent or withdrawn appeals had not necessarily attracted costs, and a costs order against a tenant ordered to leave premises could carry a punitive connotation or effect.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel; on the Papers After Dismissal of Application to Set Aside or Vary Possession Order
Outcome
The respondent's application for costs is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['special Circumstances for Costs' 'misconceived or Lacking in Substance Application' 'discretion to Award Costs' 'set Aside or Variation of Tribunal Decisions']
['costs' 'residential Tenancy' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure'] ['special Circumstances for Costs' 'misconceived or Lacking in Substance Application' 'discretion to Award Costs' 'set Aside or Variation of Tribunal Decisions']

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 Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel; on the Papers After Dismissal of Application to Set Aside or Vary Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special circumstances warranted an award of costs under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' "Whether the applicant's misconceived and lacking in substance set aside application justified a costs order in favour of the respondent."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant's set aside application was misconceived and lacking in substance, costs were refused in the exercise of discretion because the applicant was unrepresented, the Tribunal's ordinary position is that parties bear their own costs and generally conduct their own cases, the presence of an s 60(3) circumstance does not automatically require costs, comparable incompetent or withdrawn appeals had not necessarily attracted costs, and a costs order against a tenant ordered to leave premises could carry a punitive connotation or effect.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for costs is dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application for costs is dismissed."]