Profilio v Coogee Bay Village Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 319

Profilio v Coogee Bay Village Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 319

The Applicants did not establish that it was fair to order costs before the proceedings had concluded: the alleged non-compliance with directions lacked evidentiary support, the specific alleged conduct did not amount to vexatious conduct of the proceedings, the Respondent was not shown to have unreasonably prolonged the proceedings, and reliance on the relative weakness of the Respondent's liability case was premature while damages remained to be determined.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Costs Application / Interim Application for Costs Determined on the Papers Before Determination of Remedies or Damages
Outcome
The Applicants' interim application for costs was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interim Costs' 'exclusive Use Clause' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'failure to Comply With Tribunal Directions' 'vexatious Conduct of Proceedings' 'unreasonable Prolongation of Proceedings' 'relative Strengths of Claims']
['retail Leases' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['interim Costs' 'exclusive Use Clause' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'failure to Comply With Tribunal Directions' 'vexatious Conduct of Proceedings' 'unreasonable Prolongation of Proceedings' 'relative Strengths of Claims']

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

Retail Lease Costs Application / Interim Application for Costs Determined on the Papers Before Determination of Remedies or Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair under section 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to award the Applicants costs before the proceedings had come to an end.' 'Whether the Respondent failed without reasonable excuse to comply with Tribunal directions for expert evidence.' 'Whether the Respondent conducted the proceedings vexatiously.' 'Whether the Respondent unreasonably prolonged the time taken to complete the proceedings.' "Whether the relative weakness of the Respondent's case justified an interim costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants did not establish that it was fair to order costs before the proceedings had concluded: the alleged non-compliance with directions lacked evidentiary support, the specific alleged conduct did not amount to vexatious conduct of the proceedings, the Respondent was not shown to have unreasonably prolonged the proceedings, and reliance on the relative weakness of the Respondent's liability case was premature while damages remained to be determined.

Court Disposition

The Applicants' interim application for costs was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants' application for costs filed on 31 August 2009 is dismissed."]