Pursell v Eversham Close Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 373

Pursell v Eversham Close Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 373

Although the amount recovered by the Plaintiff fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the Tribunal had adequate power to grant relief, the court accepted that the uncertainties and complexities in the assessment, as well as the question of jurisdictional limit, rendered it unjust to order the Plaintiff to pay...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff; no order as to costs; interest ordered as specified.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders Under Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (nsw) S 208' 'application of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 42.35' 'jurisdiction Between Tribunal and District Court' 'interest on Judgment Debts' 'commencement of Proceedings in Appropriate Court']
['costs Law' 'civil Procedure' 'residential Tenancies'] ['costs Orders Under Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (nsw) S 208' 'application of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 42.35' 'jurisdiction Between Tribunal and District Court' 'interest on Judgment Debts' 'commencement of Proceedings in Appropriate Court']

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

Civil / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether s 208 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) applies to require the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs" 'Whether r 42.35 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) should be applied to deny the Plaintiff costs' 'Whether proceedings were warranted in the District Court instead of the Tribunal or Local Court']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the amount recovered by the Plaintiff fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the Tribunal had adequate power to grant relief, the court accepted that the uncertainties and complexities in the assessment, as well as the question of jurisdictional limit, rendered it unjust to order the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant’s costs under s 208. However, as the Plaintiff did not show that commencing in the District Court rather than the Local Court was warranted, the ordinary rule under r 42.35 applied—no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff; no order as to costs; interest ordered as specified.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $11,900' 'The Defendant is to pay interest on the said sum from 12 December 2017 to date in accordance with s 100 of the 2005 Act and District Court Practice Note 15 clause 5' 'No order as to costs with the view that each party is to pay their own costs']