Tang v Mawad Group Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 282

Tang v Mawad Group Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 282

The appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal did not err in making a gross sum costs order: the discretion was neither confined to simple determinations nor fettered by absence of particular evidence types; no mandatory considerations were omitted; the material established a fair basis for the assessment; and the reasons given were adequate. The respondent's application for indemnity costs was also dismissed, as the circumstances and conduct identified did not meet the threshold for such an order.

Parties
First Appellant: Yi Min Tang; Second Appellant: Sima Podgoetsky; Respondent: Mawad Group Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application to vary costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Gross Sum Costs Order, Exercise of Discretion, Indemnity Costs, Adequacy of Reasons for Decision
Civil Procedure Costs Gross Sum Costs Order Exercise of Discretion Indemnity Costs Adequacy of Reasons for Decision

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yi Min Tang

First Appellant

Sima Podgoetsky

Second Appellant

Mawad Group Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal miscarried in exercise of its discretion in making a gross sum costs order
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations in making the costs order
  3. 3 Whether the decision was unreasonable or plainly unjust

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal did not err in making a gross sum costs order: the discretion was neither confined to simple determinations nor fettered by absence of particular evidence types; no mandatory considerations were omitted; the material established a fair basis for the assessment; and the reasons given were adequate. The respondent's application for indemnity costs was also dismissed, as the circumstances and conduct identified did not meet the threshold for such an order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application to vary costs dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondent's application to vary order numbered 5 made on 16 March 2021 is dismissed.