Sarraf and Ors v Con Zorba t/as ACP Distributors [2016] NSWCATCD 42

Sarraf and Ors v Con Zorba t/as ACP Distributors [2016] NSWCATCD 42

The Tribunal held that the applicant's claim was almost entirely unsuccessful and the respondent had been substantially successful. Given the initial claim exceeded $80,000, the grant of legal representation to both parties, an early offer of compromise exceeding the ultimate award, and the application of r 38 allowing for costs as the claim exceeded $30,000, it was appropriate the applicants pay the respondent's costs as agreed or assessed. Special circumstances and the monetary threshold for r 38 were met, thus justifying the costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Decision on Costs After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay respondent's costs as agreed or assessed
Legal Topics
['costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'rectification Claims' 'legal Representation Before Tribunal']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'rectification Claims' 'legal Representation Before Tribunal']

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 / Decision on Costs After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there are special circumstances justifying an order for costs against the applicants under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)' 'Whether the offer of compromise entitles the respondent to indemnity costs' 'Whether r 38 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 entitles order for costs where claim exceeds $30,000']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the applicant's claim was almost entirely unsuccessful and the respondent had been substantially successful. Given the initial claim exceeded $80,000, the grant of legal representation to both parties, an early offer of compromise exceeding the ultimate award, and the application of r 38 allowing for costs as the claim exceeded $30,000, it was appropriate the applicants pay the respondent's costs as agreed or assessed. Special circumstances and the monetary threshold for r 38 were met, thus justifying the costs order.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay respondent's costs as agreed or assessed

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs as agreed or assessed on the basis set out in the costs legislation (as defined in s 3A of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014)."]