Anderson v Cameron [2016] NSWCATAP 173

Anderson v Cameron [2016] NSWCATAP 173

The respondents did not establish special circumstances warranting a costs order because their contentions that the appeal and stay application lacked prospects, were frivolous or vexatious, had no basis, or disadvantaged them were unsupported by material beyond their success at first instance. The appellant lodged the appeal promptly, identified alleged errors of law, did not delay the stay application, and promptly advised after the stay was refused that he did not wish to proceed. In the absence of reasons refusing the stay, the Tribunal could not determine that the stay application lacked merit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs in an Appeal Concerning Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers After the Appeal Was Dismissed
Outcome
The respondents' application for costs was refused.
Legal Topics
['special Circumstances for Costs in NCAT Proceedings' 'dismissed Appeal' 'stay Application' 'residential Tenancy Termination and Possession']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'residential Tenancies'] ['special Circumstances for Costs in NCAT Proceedings' 'dismissed Appeal' 'stay Application' 'residential Tenancy Termination and Possession']

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 in an Appeal Concerning Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers After the Appeal Was Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents established special circumstances warranting an award of costs under section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' "Whether the appellant's appeal or stay application was so lacking in merit, frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or disadvantaging to the respondents as to justify a costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not establish special circumstances warranting a costs order because their contentions that the appeal and stay application lacked prospects, were frivolous or vexatious, had no basis, or disadvantaged them were unsupported by material beyond their success at first instance. The appellant lodged the appeal promptly, identified alleged errors of law, did not delay the stay application, and promptly advised after the stay was refused that he did not wish to proceed. In the absence of reasons refusing the stay, the Tribunal could not determine that the stay application lacked merit.

Court Disposition

The respondents' application for costs was refused.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' application for costs is refused."]