Mick Fabar Constructions Pty Ltd v Robert Symes & Kim Louise Filmer [2015] NSWCATAP 174

Mick Fabar Constructions Pty Ltd v Robert Symes & Kim Louise Filmer [2015] NSWCATAP 174

The respondents were not entitled to costs because costs do not follow the event in NCAT, r38(2) does not apply in the Appellate Division, and the respondents did not rely on or establish any of the statutory considerations in s60(3) or any other circumstances out of the ordinary warranting a costs order. The Appeal Panel considered the appeal to be one the appellant regarded as having reasonable prospects of success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal Panel Application for Costs / After Appeal Dismissed, With Leave Granted to Apply for Costs
Outcome
Respondents' claim for costs dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['ncat Appeal Costs' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 No 2 (nsw) S60' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 R38(2)']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['ncat Appeal Costs' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 No 2 (nsw) S60' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 R38(2)']

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 Panel Application for Costs / After Appeal Dismissed, With Leave Granted to Apply for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents to the appeal should be awarded costs after the appeal was dismissed.' 'Whether Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 r38(2) applied to costs of the appeal in the Appellate Division.' 'Whether special circumstances existed under Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 No 2 (NSW) s60 warranting an award of costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were not entitled to costs because costs do not follow the event in NCAT, r38(2) does not apply in the Appellate Division, and the respondents did not rely on or establish any of the statutory considerations in s60(3) or any other circumstances out of the ordinary warranting a costs order. The Appeal Panel considered the appeal to be one the appellant regarded as having reasonable prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Respondents' claim for costs dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['That the claim for costs made by the respondents to the appeal be dismissed.' 'That there be no order as to the costs of this application.']