BHR and BHS v Biripi Aborignial Children's Services (No2) [2015] NSWCATAD 109

BHR and BHS v Biripi Aborignial Children's Services (No2) [2015] NSWCATAD 109

Special circumstances warranted a limited costs order because the respondent's non-appearance on 29 May 2014, failure to comply with orders leading to the 26 June 2014 directions hearing, and delay in arranging the agreed attachment assessment until after the second hearing day unnecessarily disadvantaged the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Costs Application / Determination on the Papers of Applicants' Application for Costs After the Tribunal Affirmed the Respondent's Decision
Outcome
Costs awarded to the applicants in part.
Legal Topics
['costs in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'special Circumstances Warranting Costs' 'failure to Comply With Tribunal Directions' 'external Administrative Review' 'authorised Carers and Removal of Child From Care']
['administrative Law' 'costs' 'children and Young Persons'] ['costs in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'special Circumstances Warranting Costs' 'failure to Comply With Tribunal Directions' 'external Administrative Review' 'authorised Carers and Removal of Child From Care']

Source-derived case record

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

Administrative Review Costs Application / Determination on the Papers of Applicants' Application for Costs After the Tribunal Affirmed the Respondent's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special circumstances under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 warranted an award of costs to the applicants' "Whether the respondent's conduct in failing to appear, failing to comply with consent orders, and delaying provision of evidence and an attachment assessment unnecessarily disadvantaged the applicants" "Whether costs could include costs of representation by the applicants' appointed agent"]

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances warranted a limited costs order because the respondent's non-appearance on 29 May 2014, failure to comply with orders leading to the 26 June 2014 directions hearing, and delay in arranging the agreed attachment assessment until after the second hearing day unnecessarily disadvantaged the applicants and protracted proceedings. Costs were confined to the occasions on which that disadvantage was caused, including specified attendances by the applicants' agent and the 22 September 2014 hearing.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the applicants in part.

Orders

  • ["The respondent to pay the applicants' costs, as assessed or agreed, in accordance with the findings set out in paragraph [34] of these reasons for decision."]