Maylor (No. 2) -v- Mid North Coast Area Health Service [2001] NSWADT 118

Maylor (No. 2) -v- Mid North Coast Area Health Service [2001] NSWADT 118

Although s 111(2) empowered the Tribunal to award costs and displaced the need to show special circumstances under s 88, the discretion should not be exercised against Mr Maylor. Part of the marital status complaint could have continued and would likely have been governed by the ordinary s 114 presumption that each party bears its own costs, making it virtually impossible to fairly allocate the respondent's costs between dismissed and potentially arguable parts. The Tribunal also accepted that the complaints were brought without bad faith, that the applicant's procedural difficulties arose partly from legal representation issues and lack of legal expertise, and that access-to-justice...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Anti Discrimination Proceedings / Respondent's Application for Costs After the Applicant's Complaints Were Dismissed Under S 111 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 or Discontinued
Outcome
The respondent's application for costs was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'summary Dismissal of Complaints' 'disability Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'marital Status Discrimination' 'access to Justice for Unrepresented Litigants']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'summary Dismissal of Complaints' 'disability Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'marital Status Discrimination' 'access to Justice for Unrepresented Litigants']

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 Anti Discrimination Proceedings / Respondent's Application for Costs After the Applicant's Complaints Were Dismissed Under S 111 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 or Discontinued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal should order the complainant to pay the respondent's costs after parts of the complaint were summarily dismissed under s 111 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and the remaining part was discontinued." 'Whether s 111(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 displaced the need to show special circumstances under s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.' 'Whether the circumstances, including the applicant being unrepresented and the existence of a remaining arguable complaint, warranted refusing costs despite the summary dismissal of other complaints.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although s 111(2) empowered the Tribunal to award costs and displaced the need to show special circumstances under s 88, the discretion should not be exercised against Mr Maylor. Part of the marital status complaint could have continued and would likely have been governed by the ordinary s 114 presumption that each party bears its own costs, making it virtually impossible to fairly allocate the respondent's costs between dismissed and potentially arguable parts. The Tribunal also accepted that the complaints were brought without bad faith, that the applicant's procedural difficulties arose partly from legal representation issues and lack of legal expertise, and that access-to-justice...

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for costs was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for costs is dismissed.']