Kriletich v Dee Why Projects Pty Limited (No. 2) [2011] NSWADT 255

Kriletich v Dee Why Projects Pty Limited (No. 2) [2011] NSWADT 255

The Tribunal was not satisfied that it was fair to award costs to the respondent. The proceedings were not unnecessarily protracted by the applicant, earlier conduct had already been addressed by a costs order, hearing liability separately did not disadvantage the respondent, the applicant's claim was weak but not unarguable or complex, and the applicant had not unreasonably rejected the relevant settlement offers, including because the 25 August 2010 heads of agreement was accepted and the 18 November 2010 offer was made before the respondent served its evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Costs Application Following Dismissal of Retail Tenancy and Unconscionable Conduct Claim / Application by Respondent for Costs, Including Indemnity Costs
Outcome
The respondent's application for costs is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'retail Tenancy Dispute' 'unconscionable Conduct Claim' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs']
['retail Leases' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'retail Tenancy Dispute' 'unconscionable Conduct Claim' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Retail Lease Costs Application Following Dismissal of Retail Tenancy and Unconscionable Conduct Claim / Application by Respondent for Costs, Including Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair under section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to award costs to the successful respondent.' 'Whether the applicant conducted or prolonged the proceedings in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the respondent.' "Whether the applicant's claim was so weak or untenable as to justify a costs order." "Whether the applicant unreasonably rejected the respondent's offers of compromise." 'Whether indemnity costs should be awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not satisfied that it was fair to award costs to the respondent. The proceedings were not unnecessarily protracted by the applicant, earlier conduct had already been addressed by a costs order, hearing liability separately did not disadvantage the respondent, the applicant's claim was weak but not unarguable or complex, and the applicant had not unreasonably rejected the relevant settlement offers, including because the 25 August 2010 heads of agreement was accepted and the 18 November 2010 offer was made before the respondent served its evidence.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for costs is dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application for costs is dismissed."]