Hanna v BOS Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAP 73

Hanna v BOS Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAP 73

Because the appeal was dismissed, the respondent was the successful party and the amount in dispute exceeded $30,000, the Tribunal ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Indemnity costs were refused because the appeal was not untenable and no relevant delinquency or unreasonable conduct was shown. A lump sum costs order was refused because the Tribunal was not satisfied it had adequate material to fix a fair and reasonable amount, particularly given concerns about the reasonableness and possible duplication in the claimed costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal Costs Application / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers After the Respondent Succeeded on the Appeal
Outcome
Respondent awarded costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed; indemnity costs and a lump sum costs order refused; hearing dispensed with.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'indemnity Costs' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'successful Party Costs' 'real Estate Agent Commission' 'relief From Disentitlement to Commission']
['costs' 'consumer and Commercial Law' 'property and Real Estate Agency Law'] ['costs of Appeal' 'indemnity Costs' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'successful Party Costs' 'real Estate Agent Commission' 'relief From Disentitlement to Commission']

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

Appeal Costs Application / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers After the Respondent Succeeded on the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a hearing of the respondent's costs application should be dispensed with" "Whether the appellants should pay the respondent's costs of the appeal" "Whether the respondent's costs should be paid on an indemnity basis" 'Whether the Tribunal should make a lump sum costs order']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appeal was dismissed, the respondent was the successful party and the amount in dispute exceeded $30,000, the Tribunal ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Indemnity costs were refused because the appeal was not untenable and no relevant delinquency or unreasonable conduct was shown. A lump sum costs order was refused because the Tribunal was not satisfied it had adequate material to fix a fair and reasonable amount, particularly given concerns about the reasonableness and possible duplication in the claimed costs.

Court Disposition

Respondent awarded costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed; indemnity costs and a lump sum costs order refused; hearing dispensed with.

Orders

  • ["A hearing of the respondent's costs application be dispensed with." "The appellants are to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed."]