Staniland v Integrity New Homes Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 24

Staniland v Integrity New Homes Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 24

The Appeal Panel found that, as the amount in dispute exceeded $30,000 and by operation of r 38A of the NCAT Rules, the applicable costs provisions were those of the CTTT Act and Regulation, not s 60 of the NCAT Act; both parties contributed to unnecessary costs by addressing irrelevant provisions, the respondent was ultimately successful, and the appropriate exercise of discretion was to order the appellants to pay 50% of the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Parties
Appellants: Robert Staniland and Kristine Staniland; Respondent: Integrity New Homes Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Costs Following Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Appellants to pay 50% of respondent's costs of appeal on an ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
Calderbank Offers, Discretion in Costs Awards, Applicability of Cost Provisions Under Enabling Statutes, Special Order for Costs
Costs Tribunal Procedure Calderbank Offers Discretion in Costs Awards Applicability of Cost Provisions Under Enabling Statutes Special Order for 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Staniland and Kristine Staniland

Appellants

Integrity New Homes Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Costs Following Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which costs regime applies on appeal: s 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 or the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act and Regulation?
  2. 2 Should the respondent have its costs of the appeal, on what basis, and to what extent should offers to settle affect that order?

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found that, as the amount in dispute exceeded $30,000 and by operation of r 38A of the NCAT Rules, the applicable costs provisions were those of the CTTT Act and Regulation, not s 60 of the NCAT Act; both parties contributed to unnecessary costs by addressing irrelevant provisions, the respondent was ultimately successful, and the appropriate exercise of discretion was to order the appellants to pay 50% of the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appellants to pay 50% of respondent's costs of appeal on an ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • The appellants are to pay 50% of the respondent's cost of the appeal, as agreed or assessed on an ordinary basis.