Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd -v- Cvetkovski (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 10

Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd -v- Cvetkovski (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 10

Leave to appeal out of time was granted because the applicant’s delay had an adequate explanation due to the timing of the separate costs decision; the Tribunal erred in awarding damages for economic loss in the absence of a finding of constructive dismissal, and the costs order miscarried as the only identified circumstance (settlement negotiations) was not sufficiently unusual to justify departure from the presumptive costs rule.

Parties
Applicant: Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Lou Cvetkovski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal (administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Costs, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Economic Loss, Tribunal Procedure
Anti Discrimination Law Administrative Law Race Discrimination Victimisation Costs Leave to Appeal Out of Time Economic Loss 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Lou Cvetkovski

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal (administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding damages for economic loss
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to take account of the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal out of time was granted because the applicant’s delay had an adequate explanation due to the timing of the separate costs decision; the Tribunal erred in awarding damages for economic loss in the absence of a finding of constructive dismissal, and the costs order miscarried as the only identified circumstance (settlement negotiations) was not sufficiently unusual to justify departure from the presumptive costs rule.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed to have been made within the time it was made, which date was 28 days after the costs decision of 31 August 1999.
  • The award of damages for economic loss ($32,651.91) of 26 May 1999 is set aside.