Markunsky v Zammit t/a Zammit Quality Constructions [2016] NSWCATAP 253

Markunsky v Zammit t/a Zammit Quality Constructions [2016] NSWCATAP 253

The Tribunal did not err in making a single costs order as it was permissible and consistent with established practice where claims arise from the same factual substratum and are joined. The Tribunal properly considered the partial success of both parties and settlement offers. No relevant legal principle was misapplied, and the Owners did not demonstrate any basis for leave to appeal on grounds not raising questions of law. 'Special circumstances' warranting an award of costs in the appeal were not established.

Parties
Appellants: Saul & Shereen Markunsky; Respondents: Jason & Michelle Zammit t/a Zammit Quality Constructions
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused. Appeal dismissed. Application for costs of the appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Exercise of Costs Discretion, Compensatory Principle, Special Circumstances, Award of Costs, Settlement Offers, Measure of Success, Ancillary Decision, Leave to Appeal
Costs Exercise of Costs Discretion Compensatory Principle Special Circumstances Award of Costs Settlement Offers Measure of Success Ancillary Decision +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saul & Shereen Markunsky

Appellants

Jason & Michelle Zammit t/a Zammit Quality Constructions

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tribunal erred in making a single costs order
  2. 2 Whether Tribunal failed to consider relevant settlement offers and measure of success
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted on grounds not raising questions of law

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in making a single costs order as it was permissible and consistent with established practice where claims arise from the same factual substratum and are joined. The Tribunal properly considered the partial success of both parties and settlement offers. No relevant legal principle was misapplied, and the Owners did not demonstrate any basis for leave to appeal on grounds not raising questions of law. 'Special circumstances' warranting an award of costs in the appeal were not established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused. Appeal dismissed. Application for costs of the appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Appeal dismissed.