Smith v Giro Construction Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 214

Smith v Giro Construction Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 214

The Tribunal erred in exercising its costs discretion because Mr Smith succeeded on liability and obtained a work order with a quantum value of about $27,000, yet the Tribunal reduced his recoverable costs to 10% essentially because his claim was described as inflated. The reasons did not show that the alleged inflated claim was a dominant or severable issue, occupied significant hearing or preparation time, or otherwise justified departing from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The Tribunal therefore failed appropriately to apply the relevant legal principles governing costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Against a Costs Decision in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs decision set aside and substituted.
Legal Topics
['tribunal Costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'appeal on a Question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'rectification Work Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'administrative Law' 'home Building and Consumer Law'] ['tribunal Costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'appeal on a Question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'rectification Work Order']

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

Internal Appeal Against a Costs Decision in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal miscarried in exercising its costs discretion by awarding the successful appellant only 10% of his costs' "Whether the Tribunal took into account an irrelevant consideration or failed to take into account relevant considerations when treating the appellant's claim as inflated" 'Whether leave to appeal was required or the appeal involved an error of law']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in exercising its costs discretion because Mr Smith succeeded on liability and obtained a work order with a quantum value of about $27,000, yet the Tribunal reduced his recoverable costs to 10% essentially because his claim was described as inflated. The reasons did not show that the alleged inflated claim was a dominant or severable issue, occupied significant hearing or preparation time, or otherwise justified departing from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The Tribunal therefore failed appropriately to apply the relevant legal principles governing costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs decision set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The decision of the Tribunal made on 15 April 2015 is set aside.' "Giro Constructions Pty Ltd is to pay Mr Haydn Smith's costs as agreed or assessed."]