Health Care Complaints Commission v Le (No 2) [2021] NSWCATOD 122

Health Care Complaints Commission v Le (No 2) [2021] NSWCATOD 122

Although the Commission's statements of principle were correct, the Tribunal declined to make the fixed sum costs order because there was no evidence of protracted costs fighting, the amount sought was significant from the respondent's perspective, there was no evidence that costs assessment would be protracted and expensive, and the Tribunal was not persuaded that there would be a dispute about costs warranting a lump sum order. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or as assessed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers Following Substantive Decision
Outcome
Fixed sum costs order declined; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or as assessed.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'fixed Sum Costs Order' 'assessment of Costs' 'occupational Disciplinary Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'health Practitioner Regulation' 'costs'] ['costs Orders' 'fixed Sum Costs Order' 'assessment of Costs' 'occupational Disciplinary Proceedings']

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 / On the Papers Following Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should be ordered to pay the applicant's costs as a fixed sum of $18,000 or as agreed or assessed." 'Whether the circumstances justified the Tribunal fixing the amount of costs rather than leaving costs to agreement or assessment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Commission's statements of principle were correct, the Tribunal declined to make the fixed sum costs order because there was no evidence of protracted costs fighting, the amount sought was significant from the respondent's perspective, there was no evidence that costs assessment would be protracted and expensive, and the Tribunal was not persuaded that there would be a dispute about costs warranting a lump sum order. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or as assessed.

Court Disposition

Fixed sum costs order declined; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or as assessed.

Orders

  • ["The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or as assessed."]