Building Professionals Board v Cohen (Costs) [2011] NSWADT 134

Given the respondent’s lack of cooperation, delays, lack of candour, attempts to mislead, and the Board’s complete success on the issues, the interests of fairness dictate that the respondent should pay the applicant’s costs.

Parties: Applicant: Building Professionals Board; Respondent: Bernard Cohen
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 June 2011
Procedural Posture: Disciplinary Proceedings (costs Application) / Costs Determination Following Substantive and Disciplinary Decisions
Outcome: Applicant’s application for costs granted; respondent to pay applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics: Costs, Accredited Certifier Discipline, Tribunal Procedure

Administrative Law Professional Discipline Civil Procedure Costs Accredited Certifier Discipline 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Building Professionals Board

Applicant

Bernard Cohen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Proceedings (costs Application) / Costs Determination Following Substantive and Disciplinary Decisions

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Applicant’s application for costs granted; respondent to pay applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

That the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.