BPU v NSW Trustee and Guardian (Costs) [2016] NSWCATAP 87

BPU v NSW Trustee and Guardian (Costs) [2016] NSWCATAP 87

Special circumstances warranting a costs order existed because the appellant's appeal and application for leave to appeal identified no error of law, did not raise matters warranting leave to appeal, were misconceived and lacked substance, and the appellant's withdrawal about two hours before the hearing unnecessarily disadvantaged the second respondent by causing her to incur costs of preparation and counsel that should not have been incurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Internal Appeal / Determined on the Papers After Appellant Withdrew Appeal
Outcome
The second respondent's costs application was granted; the appellant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed, with the order to take effect 28 days after the decision.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'withdrawal of Appeal' 'special Circumstances Warranting Costs' 'misconceived or Lacking in Substance Appeal' 'unnecessary Disadvantage to Another Party']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['internal Appeal' 'withdrawal of Appeal' 'special Circumstances Warranting Costs' 'misconceived or Lacking in Substance Appeal' 'unnecessary Disadvantage to Another Party']

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 in Internal Appeal / Determined on the Papers After Appellant Withdrew Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special circumstances warranted an award of costs after the appellant withdrew the appeal shortly before the hearing.' "Whether the appellant's appeal and application for leave to appeal were misconceived and lacked substance." 'Whether the appellant conducted the proceedings in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the second respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances warranting a costs order existed because the appellant's appeal and application for leave to appeal identified no error of law, did not raise matters warranting leave to appeal, were misconceived and lacked substance, and the appellant's withdrawal about two hours before the hearing unnecessarily disadvantaged the second respondent by causing her to incur costs of preparation and counsel that should not have been incurred.

Court Disposition

The second respondent's costs application was granted; the appellant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed, with the order to take effect 28 days after the decision.

Orders

  • ["The appellant shall pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed." 'This Costs Order is to take effect 28 days after the date of this decision.']