Kimberley Developments Pty Ltd v Cicihour Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWCATAP 250

Kimberley Developments Pty Ltd v Cicihour Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWCATAP 250

No special circumstances justified an award of costs to either party. Although there were elements of potential unreasonableness in both parties' conduct, those matters balanced against each other: CPL should have given greater consideration to defending the original Tribunal decision once errors of law were properly articulated, while KDPL was tardy in properly articulating its appeal, should have made proper disclosure on its ex parte stay application, should have complied with Tribunal orders once the stay was lifted, and should not have pressed its new case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Costs Application Concerning Proceedings Under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (nsw) / Costs Determination After Appeal Allowed and Proceedings Remitted for Re Hearing
Outcome
The applications for costs are dismissed.
Legal Topics
['special Circumstances for Costs in Ncat' 'internal Appeal Costs' 'dividing Fences Act Proceedings' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) S 60']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'dividing Fences'] ['special Circumstances for Costs in Ncat' 'internal Appeal Costs' 'dividing Fences Act Proceedings' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) S 60']

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

Internal Appeal Costs Application Concerning Proceedings Under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 (nsw) / Costs Determination After Appeal Allowed and Proceedings Remitted for Re Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special circumstances existed under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to justify an award of costs of the appeal to either party.' 'Whether the conduct of either party in the appeal proceedings and related interlocutory matters justified departure from the ordinary position that each party bears its own costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

No special circumstances justified an award of costs to either party. Although there were elements of potential unreasonableness in both parties' conduct, those matters balanced against each other: CPL should have given greater consideration to defending the original Tribunal decision once errors of law were properly articulated, while KDPL was tardy in properly articulating its appeal, should have made proper disclosure on its ex parte stay application, should have complied with Tribunal orders once the stay was lifted, and should not have pressed its new case.

Court Disposition

The applications for costs are dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The applications for costs are dismissed.']