Anon -V- Anon (No. 1) [1997] NSWEOT

Anon -V- Anon (No. 1) [1997] NSWEOT

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order costs against the complainant's solicitors, but it was appropriate to order costs against the complainant because the complainant's admissions under cross-examination, including that he had lied under oath, cast doubt on his bona fides, and the Tribunal had concerns about the manner in which he prosecuted a complaint it viewed as misconceived and lacking in substance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Homosexuality Discrimination in the Area of Education / Determination of Respondent's Application for Costs After the Complainant Asked the Tribunal to Dismiss His Claims
Outcome
Costs ordered against the complainant in favour of the respondent.
Legal Topics
['homosexuality Discrimination in Education' 'costs Against Unsuccessful Complainant' 'jurisdiction to Order Costs Against Solicitors' 'suppression Order']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'costs'] ['homosexuality Discrimination in Education' 'costs Against Unsuccessful Complainant' 'jurisdiction to Order Costs Against Solicitors' 'suppression Order']

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

Complaint of Homosexuality Discrimination in the Area of Education / Determination of Respondent's Application for Costs After the Complainant Asked the Tribunal to Dismiss His Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the complainant's solicitors to pay the respondent's costs." "Whether a costs order should be made against the complainant after the proceedings were dismissed on the complainant's own motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order costs against the complainant's solicitors, but it was appropriate to order costs against the complainant because the complainant's admissions under cross-examination, including that he had lied under oath, cast doubt on his bona fides, and the Tribunal had concerns about the manner in which he prosecuted a complaint it viewed as misconceived and lacking in substance.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered against the complainant in favour of the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make an order for costs against the solicitors for the complainant.' 'Costs ordered against the complainant in favour of the respondent in the terms sought by the respondent in his application, up to the statutory limit of liability of the Legal Aid Commission.']