Stefopoulos v Manikas (No 3) [2004] NSWADT 172

Stefopoulos v Manikas (No 3) [2004] NSWADT 172

The Tribunal found that, while the applicant's case was not wholly unarguable, his conduct in prosecuting the matter in a dilatory fashion on largely irrelevant issues and his primary claim lacking merit amount to special circumstances warranting an award of costs against him. However, as some aspects of the claim were arguable and there were findings against the respondents, costs should be limited to two thirds in favor of the respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Costs Application / Post Substantive Decision; Costs Determination
Outcome
Applicant to pay two thirds of the respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'special Circumstances' 'tribunal Discretion']
['retail Leasing' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'special Circumstances' 'tribunal Discretion']

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

Retail Lease Costs Application / Post Substantive Decision; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special circumstances exist to warrant an award of costs under s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 and s 77A of the Retail Leases Act 1994 in retail lease proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, while the applicant's case was not wholly unarguable, his conduct in prosecuting the matter in a dilatory fashion on largely irrelevant issues and his primary claim lacking merit amount to special circumstances warranting an award of costs against him. However, as some aspects of the claim were arguable and there were findings against the respondents, costs should be limited to two thirds in favor of the respondents.

Court Disposition

Applicant to pay two thirds of the respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay two thirds of the Respondents' costs. Those costs are to be assessed on the basis set out in Division 6 of Part 11 of the Legal Profession Act 1987."]