Buzrio Pty Limited v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [No. 3] [2009] NSWSC 1132

Buzrio Pty Limited v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [No. 3] [2009] NSWSC 1132

James Chan was responsible for the proceedings because his application to the Tribunal for a further interim order was the principal reason the order was made and forced the Plaintiff to seek relief in the Supreme Court. His submitting appearance did not avoid liability for costs. Because he made the application immediately after Rothman J's judgment and in the face of findings about the adjudicator's jurisdiction and the need for notice, his conduct constituted misconduct or delinquency sufficient to justify indemnity costs. Alternatively, the principle concerning hopeless proceedings applied analogously because his Tribunal application was doomed to failure and led directly to the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment Following Judicial Review Orders in the Form of Certiorari and Prohibition / Consequential Costs Application
Outcome
The Plaintiff's costs application against the Third Defendant was allowed on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['costs Against Submitting Party' 'indemnity Costs' 'judicial Review' 'certiorari and Prohibition' 'misconduct or Delinquency in Relation to Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['costs Against Submitting Party' 'indemnity Costs' 'judicial Review' 'certiorari and Prohibition' 'misconduct or Delinquency in Relation to 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Judgment Following Judicial Review Orders in the Form of Certiorari and Prohibition / Consequential Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful Plaintiff should obtain costs against the Third Defendant despite the Third Defendant having filed a submitting appearance and taken no active part in the substantive proceedings.' "Whether the Third Defendant's conduct in applying to the Tribunal for a further interim order made the Supreme Court proceedings necessary." 'Whether the Third Defendant should pay costs on an indemnity basis because of misconduct, delinquency, or an analogous application of the principle concerning hopeless proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

James Chan was responsible for the proceedings because his application to the Tribunal for a further interim order was the principal reason the order was made and forced the Plaintiff to seek relief in the Supreme Court. His submitting appearance did not avoid liability for costs. Because he made the application immediately after Rothman J's judgment and in the face of findings about the adjudicator's jurisdiction and the need for notice, his conduct constituted misconduct or delinquency sufficient to justify indemnity costs. Alternatively, the principle concerning hopeless proceedings applied analogously because his Tribunal application was doomed to failure and led directly to the...

Court Disposition

The Plaintiff's costs application against the Third Defendant was allowed on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ["Order that the Third Defendant James Chan pay the Plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis."]