Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd v Spiteri [2015] NSWCATAP 48

Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd v Spiteri [2015] NSWCATAP 48

Special circumstances were established because the appeal was lacking in substance, no appeal grounds were stated, and the appeal was misconceived: Kurmond sought only a stay to delay payment and did not wish to appeal the substantive payment order. Because Kurmond was legally represented and assessment would be...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal Costs / Application for Costs Decided on the Papers After the Appellant Withdrew Its Appeal and the Appeal Panel Dismissed the Appeal Pursuant to S55 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Outcome
The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal in a fixed amount of $3,500.
Legal Topics
['special Circumstances for Costs' 'misconceived or Lacking in Substance Appeal' 'withdrawal of Appeal' 'fixed Costs Order']
['civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['special Circumstances for Costs' 'misconceived or Lacking in Substance Appeal' 'withdrawal of Appeal' 'fixed Costs Order']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal Costs / Application for Costs Decided on the Papers After the Appellant Withdrew Its Appeal and the Appeal Panel Dismissed the Appeal Pursuant to S55 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special circumstances under s60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 warranted an award of costs to the respondents after the appellant withdrew its appeal.' 'Whether the Appeal Panel should fix the amount of costs rather than require assessment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances were established because the appeal was lacking in substance, no appeal grounds were stated, and the appeal was misconceived: Kurmond sought only a stay to delay payment and did not wish to appeal the substantive payment order. Because Kurmond was legally represented and assessment would be disproportionate and contrary to the guiding principle, the Appeal Panel fixed the respondents' appeal costs at $3,500.

Court Disposition

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal in a fixed amount of $3,500.

Orders

  • ["The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal." 'The appellant is to pay the respondent the sum of $3,500 on or before 21 April 2015.']