Aydemir v Redegalli [2011] NSWADT 198

Aydemir v Redegalli [2011] NSWADT 198

It was not fair to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs because there was no undue delay after she obtained legal representation, withdrawal did not amount to a concession that the complaint lacked merit, and without a hearing the Tribunal could not properly determine the merits of the complaint. The respondent's application for an apology had no statutory basis because the Tribunal had no power to order an applicant to apologise to a respondent, making it fair to order the respondent to pay $500 for the applicant's costs of responding to that application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunity Division Racial Vilification Complaint; Costs Application / Determination on the Papers of the Respondent's Applications for Costs and an Apology, and the Applicant's Application for Costs, After the Complaint Was Withdrawn and Dismissed
Outcome
The respondent's application for costs was refused, the respondent's application for an apology was refused, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $500 for the costs of responding to the apology application.
Legal Topics
['racial Vilification' 'costs After Withdrawal of Complaint' 'costs Incurred at the Anti Discrimination Board' 'tribunal Jurisdiction to Order an Apology' 'equal Opportunity Division Procedure']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['racial Vilification' 'costs After Withdrawal of Complaint' 'costs Incurred at the Anti Discrimination Board' 'tribunal Jurisdiction to Order an Apology' 'equal Opportunity Division 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunity Division Racial Vilification Complaint; Costs Application / Determination on the Papers of the Respondent's Applications for Costs and an Apology, and the Applicant's Application for Costs, After the Complaint Was Withdrawn and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs after the complaint was withdrawn and dismissed." 'Whether costs incurred while the complaint was before the Anti-Discrimination Board were recoverable in Tribunal proceedings.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the applicant to apologise to the respondent.' "Whether the respondent should pay the applicant's costs of responding to the respondent's costs and apology applications."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was not fair to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs because there was no undue delay after she obtained legal representation, withdrawal did not amount to a concession that the complaint lacked merit, and without a hearing the Tribunal could not properly determine the merits of the complaint. The respondent's application for an apology had no statutory basis because the Tribunal had no power to order an applicant to apologise to a respondent, making it fair to order the respondent to pay $500 for the applicant's costs of responding to that application.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for costs was refused, the respondent's application for an apology was refused, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $500 for the costs of responding to the apology application.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application for costs is refused." "The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant $500 being the costs of responding to the respondent's application for an apology."]