Ahmed v Phase Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWCATAP 165

Ahmed v Phase Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWCATAP 165

The Appellant was entitled to recover the $486 appeal lodgement fee because she was successful on the appeal and the Respondent consented to that order. The expert report cost was not recoverable because the report was new evidence, was not supported by a persuasive explanation for its reception on appeal, and was not necessary to the determination of the appeal. The mortgage and rental costs were not costs of prosecuting the appeal but formed part of the substantive compensation claim to be determined on remittal. The Respondent was not awarded costs of the costs application because the Appellant had partial success and the appropriate result was that the parties otherwise bear their own...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs of an Internal Appeal in NCAT Consumer and Commercial Division Proceedings / Costs Determined on the Papers After the Appeal Was Upheld and Remitted for Rehearing
Outcome
Costs application allowed in part; Respondent's request for costs of resisting the costs application rejected.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'self Represented Litigant' 'expert Report Costs' 'new Evidence on Appeal' 'disbursements' 'costs on the Papers']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer and Commercial Proceedings'] ['costs of Appeal' 'self Represented Litigant' 'expert Report Costs' 'new Evidence on Appeal' 'disbursements' 'costs on the Papers']

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

Application for Costs of an Internal Appeal in NCAT Consumer and Commercial Division Proceedings / Costs Determined on the Papers After the Appeal Was Upheld and Remitted for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Appellant should recover the lodgement fee for the Notice of Appeal.' 'Whether the Respondent should pay the cost of an expert report prepared by Studio Trobec Pty Ltd.' 'Whether mortgage and rental costs claimed by the Appellant were costs of the appeal or substantive relief to be determined on remittal.' "Whether the Respondent should receive costs of resisting the Appellant's costs application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant was entitled to recover the $486 appeal lodgement fee because she was successful on the appeal and the Respondent consented to that order. The expert report cost was not recoverable because the report was new evidence, was not supported by a persuasive explanation for its reception on appeal, and was not necessary to the determination of the appeal. The mortgage and rental costs were not costs of prosecuting the appeal but formed part of the substantive compensation claim to be determined on remittal. The Respondent was not awarded costs of the costs application because the Appellant had partial success and the appropriate result was that the parties otherwise bear their own...

Court Disposition

Costs application allowed in part; Respondent's request for costs of resisting the costs application rejected.

Orders

  • ['A hearing on costs is dispensed with.' "The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs in the sum of $486.00."]