Amelia Christopher v Tracey Fowler [2017] NSWDC 71

Amelia Christopher v Tracey Fowler [2017] NSWDC 71

The applicant did not address the statutory requirement that the respondent's application be frivolous or vexatious, an independent review of the evidence disclosed nothing suggesting that the respondent's application was frivolous or vexatious, and the applicant did not prove that she had paid or was liable for professional costs within the Act; therefore the power to award costs was not engaged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Successful Appeal Against Imposition of an Apprehended Personal Violence Order / On the Papers
Outcome
The application for costs is refused.
Legal Topics
['application for Costs' 'apprehended Personal Violence Order' 'frivolous or Vexatious Application' 'professional Costs' 'litigant in Person']
['criminal' 'costs'] ['application for Costs' 'apprehended Personal Violence Order' 'frivolous or Vexatious Application' 'professional Costs' 'litigant in Person']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Successful Appeal Against Imposition of an Apprehended Personal Violence Order / On the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether costs could be awarded against the respondent following the applicant's successful appeal against an apprehended personal violence order." "Whether the respondent's application for an order was frivolous or vexatious within s.99A of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007." 'Whether the applicant had paid or was liable to pay an amount satisfying the statutory definition of professional costs in relation to the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not address the statutory requirement that the respondent's application be frivolous or vexatious, an independent review of the evidence disclosed nothing suggesting that the respondent's application was frivolous or vexatious, and the applicant did not prove that she had paid or was liable for professional costs within the Act; therefore the power to award costs was not engaged.

Court Disposition

The application for costs is refused.

Orders

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