Bignell v NSW Casino Control Authority & Anor [2001] NSWSC 940

Bignell v NSW Casino Control Authority & Anor [2001] NSWSC 940

The Tribunal's reasons, read as a whole and without an over-zealous search for error, showed that it properly considered the relationship between s 114(1) and s 114(2) and did not apply a wrong statutory test or require a clear or extreme case. Its references to the length, difficulty and significance of the case were illustrative of relevant considerations, not a fettering of discretion. The plaintiff did not demonstrate any error of law, so the summons was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal in Relation to Costs / Supreme Court Judgment on Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed; each party pay their own costs.
Legal Topics
['costs in Equal Opportunity Tribunal Proceedings' 'statutory Construction of S 114 Anti Discrimination Act 1977' 'appeal Limited to Questions of Law' 'adequacy of Tribunal Reasons' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations']
['discrimination Law' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Equal Opportunity Tribunal Proceedings' 'statutory Construction of S 114 Anti Discrimination Act 1977' 'appeal Limited to Questions of Law' 'adequacy of Tribunal Reasons' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations']

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

Appeal From a Decision of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal in Relation to Costs / Supreme Court Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself as to the statutory test to be applied in determining the plaintiff's application for costs under s 114 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations when refusing costs.' "Whether any inadequacy or infelicity in the Tribunal's reasons disclosed an error of law."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's reasons, read as a whole and without an over-zealous search for error, showed that it properly considered the relationship between s 114(1) and s 114(2) and did not apply a wrong statutory test or require a clear or extreme case. Its references to the length, difficulty and significance of the case were illustrative of relevant considerations, not a fettering of discretion. The plaintiff did not demonstrate any error of law, so the summons was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; each party pay their own costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed' 'Each party pay their own costs']