FMV v Wandiyali [2023] NSWCATAD 288

FMV v Wandiyali [2023] NSWCATAD 288

No special circumstances warranted a costs order. The applicant did not unreasonably prolong the proceedings, the expiration of the working with children check did not show the application had no tenable basis in law or fact, the applicant withdrew after becoming aware of that expiration, the children's wishes and lack of contact did not make the proceedings frivolous or misconceived, and the other matters relied on by the respondent did not justify costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review; Costs Application / On the Papers After Withdrawal of Administrative Review Proceedings
Outcome
The respondent's costs application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['authorised Carers' 'removal of Daily Care and Control of Children' 'cancellation of Carer Authorisation' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'costs Where Proceedings Withdrawn']
['administrative Law' 'costs' 'child Welfare and Care and Protection'] ['authorised Carers' 'removal of Daily Care and Control of Children' 'cancellation of Carer Authorisation' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'costs Where Proceedings Withdrawn']

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

Administrative Review; Costs Application / On the Papers After Withdrawal of Administrative Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special circumstances existed under s 60(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to warrant a costs order after the applicant withdrew the administrative review proceedings.' 'Whether the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance or an abuse of process.' 'Whether the applicant unreasonably prolonged the proceedings or caused unnecessary expense to the respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

No special circumstances warranted a costs order. The applicant did not unreasonably prolong the proceedings, the expiration of the working with children check did not show the application had no tenable basis in law or fact, the applicant withdrew after becoming aware of that expiration, the children's wishes and lack of contact did not make the proceedings frivolous or misconceived, and the other matters relied on by the respondent did not justify costs.

Court Disposition

The respondent's costs application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for costs is dismissed.']