FZ v Commissioner for Children and Young People [2010] NSWSC 1201

FZ v Commissioner for Children and Young People [2010] NSWSC 1201

There should be no departure from the usual costs order because, although only one ground of appeal succeeded, the appeal achieved remittal of the whole matter, the case involved the same material as was before the Tribunal and no factual dispute, there was overlap among the facts and legal considerations relevant to the grounds, and little time was spent on several unsuccessful grounds. A stay was appropriate because there was no short-term detriment to the plaintiff, little was likely to happen in the next 14 days, and any further Tribunal hearing should await determination of any appeal, subject to the defendant prosecuting any appeal with all due expedition.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Decisions Tribunal; Consequential Orders / Consequential Orders After Principal Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Administrative Decisions Tribunal decision set aside; application remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal; pseudonym orders made; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs; orders stayed on condition.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'remitter to Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'remitter to Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Appeal From Administrative Decisions Tribunal; Consequential Orders / Consequential Orders After Principal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first defendant should pay only 50 per cent of the plaintiff's costs because the plaintiff succeeded on only one of seven grounds of appeal." 'Whether there should be a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event.' "Whether the orders should be stayed for 14 days pending the first defendant's decision whether to appeal to the Court of Appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

There should be no departure from the usual costs order because, although only one ground of appeal succeeded, the appeal achieved remittal of the whole matter, the case involved the same material as was before the Tribunal and no factual dispute, there was overlap among the facts and legal considerations relevant to the grounds, and little time was spent on several unsuccessful grounds. A stay was appropriate because there was no short-term detriment to the plaintiff, little was likely to happen in the next 14 days, and any further Tribunal hearing should await determination of any appeal, subject to the defendant prosecuting any appeal with all due expedition.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Administrative Decisions Tribunal decision set aside; application remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal; pseudonym orders made; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs; orders stayed on condition.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal.' "Set aside the decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal made on 14 October 2009 dismissing the plaintiff's application for an order under s 33I of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 declaring that Part 7, Division 2 of the Act not apply to him in respect of an offence...