CROOK v CONSUMER, TRADER & TENANCY TRIBUNAL OF NSW & ANOR [NO 2] [2004] NSWCA 14

CROOK v CONSUMER, TRADER & TENANCY TRIBUNAL OF NSW & ANOR [NO 2] [2004] NSWCA 14

The costs order should stand because Cachia v Haynes & Anor only prevents party and party costs from including compensation for a self-represented litigant's loss of time, and does not prevent recovery of out of pocket or other expenses on assessment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal/application for Leave to Appeal / Consideration of Costs Orders After Judgment
Outcome
Orders proposed on 18 December 2003 to stand.
Legal Topics
['litigant in Person' 'party and Party Costs' 'taxation and Assessment of Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['litigant in Person' 'party and Party Costs' 'taxation and Assessment of Costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal/application for Leave to Appeal / Consideration of Costs Orders After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should revisit its costs orders in favour of a litigant in person having regard to Cachia v Haynes & Anor (1994) 179 CLR 403.' 'Whether costs awarded on a party and party basis include compensation for the loss of time of a litigant in person.']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order should stand because Cachia v Haynes & Anor only prevents party and party costs from including compensation for a self-represented litigant's loss of time, and does not prevent recovery of out of pocket or other expenses on assessment.

Court Disposition

Orders proposed on 18 December 2003 to stand.

Orders

  • ['The order proposed by the Court is appropriate and should stand.']