Vale v Rosychamp Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1341

Vale v Rosychamp Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1341

Because the ADT leave to appeal had been refused, the Supreme Court proceedings had no further utility and were wholly unsuccessful. As they were instituted in the Supreme Court, the Court's costs rules should apply; the matter should not be remitted to the ADT merely for costs, and the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking Interlocutory Orders in Respect of Retail Lease Proceedings in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal / Duty List; Ex Tempore Judgment After Refusal of ADT Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Application' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'remittal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'costs Following the Event' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'retail Leases' 'administrative Tribunal Proceedings'] ['interlocutory Application' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'remittal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'costs Following the Event' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']

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

Summons Seeking Interlocutory Orders in Respect of Retail Lease Proceedings in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal / Duty List; Ex Tempore Judgment After Refusal of ADT Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was any utility in remitting the Supreme Court summons to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal after leave to appeal in the ADT had been refused.' 'Whether the Supreme Court or the Administrative Decisions Tribunal should determine costs of an unsuccessful interlocutory summons instituted in the Supreme Court.' 'Whether parties could by consent confer on the ADT costs powers equivalent to those of the Supreme Court or dispense with statutory preconditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the ADT leave to appeal had been refused, the Supreme Court proceedings had no further utility and were wholly unsuccessful. As they were instituted in the Supreme Court, the Court's costs rules should apply; the matter should not be remitted to the ADT merely for costs, and the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons be dismissed with costs.']