Chronopoulos v. Carossel (No 2) Pty Limited [2010] NSWADT 236

Chronopoulos v. Carossel (No 2) Pty Limited [2010] NSWADT 236

Although the Applicant's case was not entirely without merit, factors including the pursuit of rectification outside Tribunal powers, last-minute amendment of pleadings, and disadvantage to the Respondent justified an order that the Applicant pay 75% of the Respondent’s costs, assessed on the ordinary basis, as this is fair under s.88 of the ADT Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Dispute / Costs Determination Post Substantive Decision
Outcome
Costs order against Applicant
Legal Topics
['costs' 'estoppel by Convention' 'lease Rectification']
['commercial Law' 'retail Leases Law'] ['costs' 'estoppel by Convention' 'lease Rectification']

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

Retail Lease Dispute / Costs Determination Post Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant should pay the Respondent's costs having regard to s.88 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997" "Whether the Applicant's conduct in the proceedings justifies departure from usual costs rule"]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Applicant's case was not entirely without merit, factors including the pursuit of rectification outside Tribunal powers, last-minute amendment of pleadings, and disadvantage to the Respondent justified an order that the Applicant pay 75% of the Respondent’s costs, assessed on the ordinary basis, as this is fair under s.88 of the ADT Act.

Court Disposition

Costs order against Applicant

Orders

  • ['The Applicant pay 75% of the costs of the Respondent of and incidental to these proceedings on the ordinary basis as assessed or as agreed.']