Tuffy v Vaughan & ors. (no 2) [2009] NSWADT 242

Tuffy v Vaughan & ors. (no 2) [2009] NSWADT 242

It was fair to depart from the ordinary rule that parties bear their own costs because Mr Tuffy's claims against Ms Vaughan, Mr Weate and Ms Gill had no tenable basis in law or fact, particularly given the absence of evidence or reasoned argument that any alleged irregularity could render the election uncertain, a critical element he knew he had to establish. Ms Gill, as a self-represented party, was awarded only reasonable out-of-pocket disbursements. Mr Tuffy's costs application against Ms Gill failed because she was not in default of Tribunal directions and any alleged cost or inconvenience was not enough to justify a costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs Applications in Proceedings Under S 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Substantive Application
Outcome
Costs awarded to Ms Vaughan, Mr Weate and Ms Gill against Mr Tuffy; Mr Tuffy's application for costs against Ms Gill dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'dismissal From Civic Office' 'election Irregularities' 'self Represented Party Disbursements']
['administrative Law' 'local Government' 'costs'] ['costs in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'dismissal From Civic Office' 'election Irregularities' 'self Represented Party Disbursements']

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

Costs Applications in Proceedings Under S 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair under s 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to order Mr Tuffy to pay the costs of Ms Vaughan and Mr Weate.' 'Whether it was fair to order Mr Tuffy to pay costs or disbursements to Ms Gill.' "Whether a self-represented party's recoverable costs in the Tribunal were limited to out-of-pocket expenses or disbursements." 'Whether Mr Tuffy should receive costs against Ms Gill for a missed directions hearing, a summons to produce documents, and the established non-authorisation of a poster.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair to depart from the ordinary rule that parties bear their own costs because Mr Tuffy's claims against Ms Vaughan, Mr Weate and Ms Gill had no tenable basis in law or fact, particularly given the absence of evidence or reasoned argument that any alleged irregularity could render the election uncertain, a critical element he knew he had to establish. Ms Gill, as a self-represented party, was awarded only reasonable out-of-pocket disbursements. Mr Tuffy's costs application against Ms Gill failed because she was not in default of Tribunal directions and any alleged cost or inconvenience was not enough to justify a costs order.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Ms Vaughan, Mr Weate and Ms Gill against Mr Tuffy; Mr Tuffy's application for costs against Ms Gill dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Mr Tuffy is to pay the costs of Ms Vaughan and Mr Weate as agreed or assessed.' "Mr Tuffy is to pay Ms Gill's disbursements in the sum of $2708.65." "Mr Tuffy's application for costs against Ms Gill is dismissed."]