O’Sullivan v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 190

O’Sullivan v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 190

The applicant did not cause the adjournment on 11 December 2009, as the hearing could not have proceeded irrespective of his conduct; therefore, no costs order for the adjournment is made. The applicant's lack of preparedness on 22 February 2010 led to the adjournment of the consolidation application, and this constitutes causing an adjournment under section 88(1A)(a)(iv); therefore, the applicant should pay the respondents' costs of attendance on that date only.

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
Costs Application / Interlocutory
Outcome
Respondents' costs applications partially upheld; applicant to pay costs of attendance 22 February 2010 only.
Legal Topics
Costs, Adjournment, Consolidation of Proceedings
Anti Discrimination Law Administrative Law Costs Adjournment Consolidation of Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 5 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

Costs Application / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs of adjournment of hearing on 11 December 2009
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs related to the consolidation application

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not cause the adjournment on 11 December 2009, as the hearing could not have proceeded irrespective of his conduct; therefore, no costs order for the adjournment is made. The applicant's lack of preparedness on 22 February 2010 led to the adjournment of the consolidation application, and this constitutes causing an adjournment under section 88(1A)(a)(iv); therefore, the applicant should pay the respondents' costs of attendance on that date only.

Court Disposition

Respondents' costs applications partially upheld; applicant to pay costs of attendance 22 February 2010 only.

Orders

  • The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of attendance at the Tribunal hearing on 22 February 2010.
  • Except as stated in Order 1, the respondents' applications for costs, as outlined in paragraph [3] of these reasons, are dismissed.