Burns v Laws (No 4) [2007] NSWADT 220

Burns v Laws (No 4) [2007] NSWADT 220

The Tribunal found that inherent unfairness would arise if a party who succeeds in displacing the prima facie no-costs rule must bear the expense of sustaining their claim, and that this constitutes circumstances justifying a costs order under s. 110.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Reconsideration of Costs Following Prior Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded to Applicant for costs application.
Legal Topics
['vilification' 'homosexual' 'costs']
['anti Discrimination'] ['vilification' 'homosexual' 'costs']

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

Costs Application / Reconsideration of Costs Following Prior Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant is entitled to costs incurred in making a successful costs application in defending the respondent's application for summary dismissal"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that inherent unfairness would arise if a party who succeeds in displacing the prima facie no-costs rule must bear the expense of sustaining their claim, and that this constitutes circumstances justifying a costs order under s. 110.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Applicant for costs application.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the costs of and incidental to the Applicant's application for the costs incurred by him in defending the Respondent's application for summary dismissal of this complaint, as agreed or assessed on a party-party basis."]