Woodward v D J & T L Mellross Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 201

Woodward v D J & T L Mellross Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 201

Although special circumstances were not required because the amount in issue exceeded $30,000, the appellants failed on the dominant issues in the appeal and succeeded only on one minor, clearly separable issue concerning the remedy for the water tank capacity breach. In those circumstances, the just result was that there be no order as to costs, and the appellants' costs application was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in an Internal Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers After the Appeal Was Allowed in Part
Outcome
The appellants' application for an order for the costs of the appeal was refused.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'costs Follow the Event' 'minor Separable Issue' 'determination on the Papers' 'home Building Dispute']
['costs' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure' 'consumer and Commercial Proceedings'] ['costs of Appeal' 'costs Follow the Event' 'minor Separable Issue' 'determination on the Papers' 'home Building Dispute']

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 an Internal Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers After the Appeal Was Allowed in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants should be awarded costs of the appeal after succeeding only on one minor separable issue.' 'Whether the Appeal Panel could determine the costs application on the papers without a hearing.' 'Whether special circumstances were required before making a costs order in the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although special circumstances were not required because the amount in issue exceeded $30,000, the appellants failed on the dominant issues in the appeal and succeeded only on one minor, clearly separable issue concerning the remedy for the water tank capacity breach. In those circumstances, the just result was that there be no order as to costs, and the appellants' costs application was refused.

Court Disposition

The appellants' application for an order for the costs of the appeal was refused.

Orders

  • ["The Appellants' application for an order for the costs of the appeal is refused."]