Kalim v Universities Admissions Centre (NSW & ACT) Pty Ltd [2010] NSWADT 277

Kalim v Universities Admissions Centre (NSW & ACT) Pty Ltd [2010] NSWADT 277

It was fair to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs because he unreasonably prolonged the proceedings over an extended period by changing the factual and procedural basis of his complaints, resisting amendments, withdrawing and retracting withdrawals, and refusing without accepted legitimate reason to attend the listed hearing, and because his communications showed that he had conducted the proceedings vexatiously for the purpose of continuing litigation to annoy and harass UAC.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equal Opportunity Division Proceedings Concerning Complaints of Race Discrimination and Victimisation / Determined on the Papers After the Complaints Were Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Costs awarded to the respondent against the applicant.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'race Discrimination Complaints' 'victimisation Complaints' 'want of Prosecution' 'vexatious Conduct of Proceedings' 'unreasonable Prolongation of Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'anti Discrimination Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'race Discrimination Complaints' 'victimisation Complaints' 'want of Prosecution' 'vexatious Conduct of Proceedings' 'unreasonable Prolongation of 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

Costs Application in Equal Opportunity Division Proceedings Concerning Complaints of Race Discrimination and Victimisation / Determined on the Papers After the Complaints Were Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, despite the general rule that each party should bear their own costs, it was fair under s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 for the applicant to pay some or all of the respondent's costs." 'Whether the applicant unreasonably prolonged the time taken to complete the proceedings.' 'Whether the applicant vexatiously conducted the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs because he unreasonably prolonged the proceedings over an extended period by changing the factual and procedural basis of his complaints, resisting amendments, withdrawing and retracting withdrawals, and refusing without accepted legitimate reason to attend the listed hearing, and because his communications showed that he had conducted the proceedings vexatiously for the purpose of continuing litigation to annoy and harass UAC.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the respondent against the applicant.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the respondent's costs as agreed, or if not agreed, as assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004."]