Komadina trading as We Paint Pools v Kelleher [2018] NSWCATAP 56

Komadina trading as We Paint Pools v Kelleher [2018] NSWCATAP 56

The Appeal Panel dismissed the costs application because the appeal, though unsuccessful, had an arguable basis and was not shown to have been conducted so as to unnecessarily disadvantage the homeowner, unreasonably prolong proceedings, or be frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance. The homeowner's grievances largely concerned the defective work already compensated at first instance, and success in defending the appeal was not sufficient to constitute special circumstances under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Arising From an Internal Appeal Under S 80(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 / Appeal Panel Decision on the Papers
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['special Circumstances for Costs in Ncat' 'dispensing With a Hearing' 'internal Appeal' 'defective Home Building Works']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer and Commercial' 'home Building'] ['special Circumstances for Costs in Ncat' 'dispensing With a Hearing' 'internal Appeal' 'defective Home Building Works']

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 Arising From an Internal Appeal Under S 80(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 / Appeal Panel Decision on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an order should be made dispensing with a hearing in accordance with s 50(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013' 'Whether an order for costs should be made in favour of the homeowner']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel dismissed the costs application because the appeal, though unsuccessful, had an arguable basis and was not shown to have been conducted so as to unnecessarily disadvantage the homeowner, unreasonably prolong proceedings, or be frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance. The homeowner's grievances largely concerned the defective work already compensated at first instance, and success in defending the appeal was not sufficient to constitute special circumstances under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['A hearing on costs is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'The application for costs is dismissed.' 'Each party is to pay its own costs.']