AEL v Life Without Barriers (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 234

AEL v Life Without Barriers (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 234

The Tribunal was not persuaded that it was fair to order the respondent to pay the costs of the applicant as there was no evidence of unreasonable conduct or substantial disparity between the parties' claims, and the respondent's actions were not vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.

Parties
Applicant: AEL; Applicant: AEM; Respondent: Life Without Barriers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Decision on Costs Following Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Community Services, Administrative Decisions Tribunal Procedure
Administrative Law Costs Community Services Administrative Decisions Tribunal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AEL

Applicant

AEM

Applicant

Life Without Barriers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Decision on Costs Following Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should pay the applicants' costs of the substantive proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not persuaded that it was fair to order the respondent to pay the costs of the applicant as there was no evidence of unreasonable conduct or substantial disparity between the parties' claims, and the respondent's actions were not vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's application for costs is dismissed.