Vercoe -v- AMP Shopping Centres Pty Limited and Hardy [1999] NSWADT 89

Vercoe -v- AMP Shopping Centres Pty Limited and Hardy [1999] NSWADT 89

None of the circumstances advanced justify an order for security for costs under the relevant statutory discretion. Address has been provided; absence at conciliation conference was adequately explained; delay in filing points of claim was not significant; media publicity does not justify such an order. The Tribunal’s normal rule is each party pays their own costs and there is no evidence that any costs order would not be met or that respondent is concealing her address or is ordinarily resident outside Australia.

Parties
Applicant: Maureen Vercoe; Respondent: AMP Shopping Centres Pty Limited; Respondent: Ian Hardy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Security of Costs / Decision on Notice of Motion
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Security for Costs
Equal Opportunity Employment Law Sexual Harassment Victimisation Security for 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maureen Vercoe

Applicant

AMP Shopping Centres Pty Limited

Respondent

Ian Hardy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security of Costs / Decision on Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are circumstances justifying an order for security for costs under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
  2. 2 Application of Tribunal's discretion to make orders for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

None of the circumstances advanced justify an order for security for costs under the relevant statutory discretion. Address has been provided; absence at conciliation conference was adequately explained; delay in filing points of claim was not significant; media publicity does not justify such an order. The Tribunal’s normal rule is each party pays their own costs and there is no evidence that any costs order would not be met or that respondent is concealing her address or is ordinarily resident outside Australia.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.