MT v AA (No 2) EOD [2010] NSWADTAP 38

MT v AA (No 2) EOD [2010] NSWADTAP 38

Given that two of MT's grounds of appeal were untenable or extremely weak, and the proceedings were an appeal on questions of law, it is fair that MT should pay at least half the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Application Following Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Costs order made against appellant; MT to pay respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'disability Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'appeal Proceedings']
['anti Discrimination' 'administrative Law'] ['costs' 'disability Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'appeal Proceedings']

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 / Costs Application Following Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it is fair to award costs to respondents under s 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 given the relative strengths of the claims and nature of proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Given that two of MT's grounds of appeal were untenable or extremely weak, and the proceedings were an appeal on questions of law, it is fair that MT should pay at least half the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Costs order made against appellant; MT to pay respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ["MT is to pay the respondents' costs in the sum of $7,398.60 within 28 days of the date of this decision."]