Decrevi Pty Ltd v Matela Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] NSWADT 265

Decrevi Pty Ltd v Matela Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] NSWADT 265

Because the applicant filed the application relying on the Tribunal's jurisdiction, a certificate had been obtained, the matter had been listed repeatedly with directions made, both parties had prepared material for the substantive hearing, and the applicant then unilaterally withdrew the application, the matter was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs as fixed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in the Retail Leases Division / Written Reasons for Orders Made After the Applicant Withdrew the Application
Outcome
The matter was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['withdrawal of Application' 'dismissal' 'costs Orders' 'fixing Costs' 'jurisdiction Objection']
['retail Leases' 'administrative Tribunal Procedure' 'costs'] ['withdrawal of Application' 'dismissal' 'costs Orders' 'fixing Costs' 'jurisdiction Objection']

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

Costs Application in the Retail Leases Division / Written Reasons for Orders Made After the Applicant Withdrew the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matter should be dismissed after the applicant unilaterally withdrew its application.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs, including costs ordered on 6 March 2003 and further costs to 23 May 2003." "Whether there was evidence supporting the applicant's assertion that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the lease was excluded by Section 5 of the Retail Leases Act 1994."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant filed the application relying on the Tribunal's jurisdiction, a certificate had been obtained, the matter had been listed repeatedly with directions made, both parties had prepared material for the substantive hearing, and the applicant then unilaterally withdrew the application, the matter was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs as fixed.

Court Disposition

The matter was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The matter is dismissed.' 'Costs in the sum of $4,260.78 (incl. GST) are to be paid by the applicant to the respondent in respect of the period from 7 March 2003 to 23 May 2003 inclusive, within 28 days of the date hereof.' 'Costs ordered to be paid on 6 March 2003 are fixed in the sum of $5,189.04 (incl GST) and...