McKellar v Bourke Bowling Club Ltd [2015] NSWCATAD 262

McKellar v Bourke Bowling Club Ltd [2015] NSWCATAD 262

Although the applicant failed to comply with directions and unreasonably prolonged the proceedings, the respondent also caused delay and avoidable costs through similar conduct. The applicant's discrimination complaint was arguable and not untenable in fact or law. In those circumstances, and notwithstanding the compensatory purpose of costs, it was not fair to depart from the general rule that each party bear its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Respondent's Application for Costs Following Dismissal of Discrimination Complaint / On the Papers
Outcome
The respondent's application for costs is refused.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'fairness of Costs Order' 'race Discrimination Complaint' 'non Compliance With Tribunal Directions' 'delay in Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'anti Discrimination Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'fairness of Costs Order' 'race Discrimination Complaint' 'non Compliance With Tribunal Directions' 'delay in 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

Respondent's Application for Costs Following Dismissal of Discrimination Complaint / On the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal should award costs to the respondent under s88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.' "Whether the applicant's discrimination complaint had no tenable basis in fact or law or was merely not proved." 'Whether the applicant conducted the proceedings in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the respondent or unreasonably prolonged the proceedings.' 'Whether it was fair to depart from the general rule that each party bears its own costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant failed to comply with directions and unreasonably prolonged the proceedings, the respondent also caused delay and avoidable costs through similar conduct. The applicant's discrimination complaint was arguable and not untenable in fact or law. In those circumstances, and notwithstanding the compensatory purpose of costs, it was not fair to depart from the general rule that each party bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for costs is refused.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application for costs is refused."]