O’Sullivan v Health Care Complaints Commission [2010] NSWADT 189

O’Sullivan v Health Care Complaints Commission [2010] NSWADT 189

It would not be fair, within the meaning of section 88(1A) of the ADT Act, to require the applicant to pay respondents' costs occasioned by the adjournment, as the illness of applicant's solicitor was neither the applicant's nor the solicitor's responsibility; advance notice was given and no other legal representative had sufficient time to prepare.

Parties
Applicant: Brendan Thomas O'Sullivan; First Respondent: Health Care Complaints Commission; Second Respondent: Kieran Pehm
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Discrimination Complaint / Interlocutory (costs Determination Following Adjournment)
Outcome
costs application dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Adjournment, Procedural Fairness, Tribunal Procedure
Anti Discrimination Administrative Law Costs Adjournment Procedural Fairness Tribunal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan Thomas O'Sullivan

Applicant

Health Care Complaints Commission

First Respondent

Kieran Pehm

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Discrimination Complaint / Interlocutory (costs Determination Following Adjournment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the applicant be ordered to pay respondents' costs thrown away due to adjournment of hearing on 30 March 2010

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be fair, within the meaning of section 88(1A) of the ADT Act, to require the applicant to pay respondents' costs occasioned by the adjournment, as the illness of applicant's solicitor was neither the applicant's nor the solicitor's responsibility; advance notice was given and no other legal representative had sufficient time to prepare.

Court Disposition

costs application dismissed

Orders

  • The Respondents' application for an order that the Applicant pay their costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the hearing set down for 30 March 2010 is dismissed.