Corrigan & Gibson v Watson [2009] NSWADT 110

Corrigan & Gibson v Watson [2009] NSWADT 110

It was not fair to award costs because the Applicants commenced the substantive proceedings within the statutory time period with evidence supporting a genuine issue to be tried, discontinued promptly when the critical witness withdrew, and did not conduct the proceedings vexatiously or in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the Respondent; the Respondent did not establish that the application had no tenable basis in fact or law or that his letter justified indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs in Tribunal Proceedings Under S 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 / Costs Application Determined on the Papers After the Applicants Withdrew the Substantive Application Before Any Directions Hearing
Outcome
The Respondent's application for costs was refused.
Legal Topics
['tribunal Costs Discretion' 'fairness in Awarding Costs' 'electoral Irregularity' 'local Government Election Challenge' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs']
['administrative Law' 'local Government' 'costs'] ['tribunal Costs Discretion' 'fairness in Awarding Costs' 'electoral Irregularity' 'local Government Election Challenge' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs in Tribunal Proceedings Under S 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 / Costs Application Determined on the Papers After the Applicants Withdrew the Substantive Application Before Any Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair under s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to order the Applicants to pay the Respondent's costs after discontinuance of the substantive application." 'Whether the substantive application had no tenable basis in fact or law.' 'Whether the Applicants commenced or conducted the proceedings vexatiously, abusively, or in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the Respondent.' "Whether the Respondent's letter was a Calderbank offer justifying indemnity costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was not fair to award costs because the Applicants commenced the substantive proceedings within the statutory time period with evidence supporting a genuine issue to be tried, discontinued promptly when the critical witness withdrew, and did not conduct the proceedings vexatiously or in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the Respondent; the Respondent did not establish that the application had no tenable basis in fact or law or that his letter justified indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

The Respondent's application for costs was refused.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's application for costs is refused."]