Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Kriletich [2012] NSWADT 26

Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Kriletich [2012] NSWADT 26

It was fair to order the Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs in both proceedings because, in matter No. 115009, the Respondent failed to comply with Tribunal directions, caused an adjournment, unreasonably prolonged the proceedings, filed but did not prosecute an apparently untenable claim, did not provide supporting evidence, and withdrew shortly before hearing after the Applicant had incurred unnecessary costs; and, in matter No. 115042, the Respondent failed to file defending material, failed to comply with the Tribunal timetable, did not accept mediation, continued to contest the claim until hearing, then conceded the Applicant's facts and advanced an untenable argument, thereby...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Retail Tenancy Claim Costs / Costs Determined on the Papers After Matter No. 115009 Was Withdrawn and Matter No. 115042 Was Determined in the Applicant's Favour
Outcome
Costs awarded to the Applicant; indemnity costs not awarded.
Legal Topics
['costs in Retail Leases Division Proceedings' 'section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997' 'section 77 a of the Retail Leases Act 1994' 'indemnity Costs' 'non Compliance With Tribunal Directions' 'unreasonable Prolonging of Proceedings']
['retail Leases' 'administrative Tribunal Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in Retail Leases Division Proceedings' 'section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997' 'section 77 a of the Retail Leases Act 1994' 'indemnity Costs' 'non Compliance With Tribunal Directions' 'unreasonable Prolonging of 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

Retail Tenancy Claim Costs / Costs Determined on the Papers After Matter No. 115009 Was Withdrawn and Matter No. 115042 Was Determined in the Applicant's Favour

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair under section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to order the Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs in matter No. 115009." "Whether it was fair under section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to order the Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs in matter No. 115042." 'Whether any costs order should be made on an indemnity basis.' "Whether costs should be ordered against the Respondent's solicitor."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair to order the Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs in both proceedings because, in matter No. 115009, the Respondent failed to comply with Tribunal directions, caused an adjournment, unreasonably prolonged the proceedings, filed but did not prosecute an apparently untenable claim, did not provide supporting evidence, and withdrew shortly before hearing after the Applicant had incurred unnecessary costs; and, in matter No. 115042, the Respondent failed to file defending material, failed to comply with the Tribunal timetable, did not accept mediation, continued to contest the claim until hearing, then conceded the Applicant's facts and advanced an untenable argument, thereby...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the Applicant; indemnity costs not awarded.

Orders

  • ["Nick Kriletich is to pay Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre Pty Ltd's costs of and incidental to these proceedings as agreed or assessed."]