Du Aus Pty Ltd v Riviera Cove Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 302

Du Aus Pty Ltd v Riviera Cove Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 302

The Applicant's argument in the primary proceedings was not so extremely far fetched as to justify indemnity costs, but after the Respondent's 4th June 2010 warning it was not fair that the Respondent be put to the trouble of defending the matter. The Respondent was therefore entitled to ordinary costs for work after 4th June 2010 up to and including the hearing. The Respondent's separate claim for indemnity costs had little basis and was quite untenable, so no costs were awarded for the costs application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Costs Application / Costs Decision on the Papers After Primary Decision
Outcome
Respondent awarded ordinary costs for part of the proceedings; no order for costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'retail Lease Valuation Dispute' 'section 88 Fairness Test']
['retail Leases' 'costs' 'administrative Law'] ['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'retail Lease Valuation Dispute' 'section 88 Fairness Test']

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 / Costs Decision on the Papers After Primary Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair under section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to order the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs of the proceedings." 'Whether the Respondent was entitled to indemnity costs.' 'Whether any costs order should be made for the separate costs application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's argument in the primary proceedings was not so extremely far fetched as to justify indemnity costs, but after the Respondent's 4th June 2010 warning it was not fair that the Respondent be put to the trouble of defending the matter. The Respondent was therefore entitled to ordinary costs for work after 4th June 2010 up to and including the hearing. The Respondent's separate claim for indemnity costs had little basis and was quite untenable, so no costs were awarded for the costs application.

Court Disposition

Respondent awarded ordinary costs for part of the proceedings; no order for costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ["Applicant to pay Respondent's costs, on the ordinary basis, for all work after 4th June 2010 up to and including the hearing" 'No order for costs of this costs application.']