CCM v Western Sydney University (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAD 246

CCM v Western Sydney University (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAD 246

Special circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule on costs were not established; applicant's claims, though misconceived, were not vexatious or an abuse of process, and her conduct did not sufficiently disadvantage the respondent to warrant a costs order. The circumstances did not rise to the threshold required under s 60 of the NCAT Act.

Parties
Applicant: CCM; Respondent: Western Sydney University
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Costs Application / Post Substantive Decision; Application for Costs Following Merit Review Outcome
Outcome
Respondent's application for costs is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Costs in Administrative Merits Review, Special Circumstances for Costs, Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, Self Represented Litigants
Administrative Law Privacy Law Costs Costs in Administrative Merits Review Special Circumstances for Costs Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act Self Represented Litigants

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CCM

Applicant

Western Sydney University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Costs Application / Post Substantive Decision; Application for Costs Following Merit Review Outcome

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances exist under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to warrant an award of costs against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether any conduct of applicant amounted to disadvantage, prolongation, frivolous or vexatious litigant under s 60(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule on costs were not established; applicant's claims, though misconceived, were not vexatious or an abuse of process, and her conduct did not sufficiently disadvantage the respondent to warrant a costs order. The circumstances did not rise to the threshold required under s 60 of the NCAT Act.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for costs is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • A hearing on costs is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
  • The respondent's application for costs is dismissed.