Peck v Commissioner of Corrective Services No. (2) [2002] NSWADT 244

Peck v Commissioner of Corrective Services No. (2) [2002] NSWADT 244

The discretion under s114(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to award costs should be exercised where the applicant's award is limited by statute and eroded by legal costs, where the case raises issues of general importance, and where the respondent re-litigates settled issues without merit. Accordingly, the majority ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs.

Parties
Applicant: Mark Peck; Respondent: Commissioner of Corrective Services
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs / Post Substantive Judgment; Costs Determination
Outcome
By majority, costs awarded to applicant; dissent by A Silva, Member.
Legal Topics
Costs, Disability Discrimination, Public Sector Employment, Tribunal Procedure
Anti Discrimination Law Employment Law Costs Disability Discrimination Public Sector Employment Tribunal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Peck

Applicant

Commissioner of Corrective Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs / Post Substantive Judgment; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant under s114 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
  2. 2 Interpretation and application of public sector provisions within the context of disability discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The discretion under s114(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to award costs should be exercised where the applicant's award is limited by statute and eroded by legal costs, where the case raises issues of general importance, and where the respondent re-litigates settled issues without merit. Accordingly, the majority ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs.

Court Disposition

By majority, costs awarded to applicant; dissent by A Silva, Member.

Orders

  • The Respondent pay such costs to the Applicant in such amount as the parties may agree within 28 days of the date of publication of this decision, and failing agreement by that time, costs are to be assessed pursuant to the Legal Profession Act 1987.