Da Rin v Duffy (No 3) [2015] NSWCATOD 88

Da Rin v Duffy (No 3) [2015] NSWCATOD 88

Although the ordinary rule under s 88 was that each party bear its own costs and the applicant's proceedings were reasonably arguable and served a public interest end, the applicant ultimately failed and had conducted aspects of the first instance proceedings in a way that unnecessarily lengthened and complicated them, imposing unnecessary expense on the respondent. It was therefore fair to refuse the applicant's costs application and order the applicant to pay 50 per cent of the respondent's first instance costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Proceedings Under S 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 for an Order Dismissing the Respondent From Civic Office / After the Court of Appeal Set Aside the Tribunal's Earlier Orders and the High Court Dismissed the Applicant's Special Leave Application; the Tribunal Determined the Remaining Costs Issue
Outcome
Applicant's costs application refused; respondent awarded 50 per cent of his costs of the proceedings at first instance.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'exceptional Departure From Own Costs Rule' 'public Interest Electoral Proceedings' 'effect of Successful Appeal on Costs' 'conduct Prolonging Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'local Government' 'costs' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'exceptional Departure From Own Costs Rule' 'public Interest Electoral Proceedings' 'effect of Successful Appeal on Costs' 'conduct Prolonging 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 Application in Proceedings Under S 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 for an Order Dismissing the Respondent From Civic Office / After the Court of Appeal Set Aside the Tribunal's Earlier Orders and the High Court Dismissed the Applicant's Special Leave Application; the Tribunal Determined the Remaining Costs Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair under s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to order costs in favour of the respondent after the applicant's s 329 proceedings were dismissed following appeal proceedings" "Whether the applicant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened and complicated the proceedings so as to justify a costs order" 'Whether the applicant should receive costs despite ultimately being unsuccessful where the merits were not finally determined']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the ordinary rule under s 88 was that each party bear its own costs and the applicant's proceedings were reasonably arguable and served a public interest end, the applicant ultimately failed and had conducted aspects of the first instance proceedings in a way that unnecessarily lengthened and complicated them, imposing unnecessary expense on the respondent. It was therefore fair to refuse the applicant's costs application and order the applicant to pay 50 per cent of the respondent's first instance costs.

Court Disposition

Applicant's costs application refused; respondent awarded 50 per cent of his costs of the proceedings at first instance.

Orders

  • ["That the applicant pay 50 per cent of the respondent's costs of the proceedings at first instance, as agreed between the parties or as assessed."]