MQN (No. 3) [2018] NSWCATGD 48

MQN (No. 3) [2018] NSWCATGD 48

There were no 'special circumstances' to justify departure from the general rule that each party bears their own costs. The applications, while ultimately unsuccessful, were not so lacking in substance, frivolous, vexatious, or motivated by improper purpose as to warrant a costs order. Parties complied with directions, and concerns were not so unreasonable or misconceived as to justify a costs order in the protective jurisdiction context.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Guardianship/financial Management/review of Enduring Power of Attorney / Costs Application After Substantive Proceedings
Outcome
Costs application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in Protective Jurisdiction' 'special Circumstances for Costs Under S 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)' 'application of Guiding Principle in S 36' 'procedure Before NCAT Guardianship Division']
['guardianship Law' 'tribunal Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in Protective Jurisdiction' 'special Circumstances for Costs Under S 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)' 'application of Guiding Principle in S 36' 'procedure Before NCAT Guardianship Division']

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

Guardianship/financial Management/review of Enduring Power of Attorney / Costs Application After Substantive Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there are 'special circumstances' under s 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to warrant a costs order in the Guardianship Division proceedings." 'Whether the applications were frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance.' 'Whether the conduct of parties unnecessarily disadvantaged others or unreasonably prolonged proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

There were no 'special circumstances' to justify departure from the general rule that each party bears their own costs. The applications, while ultimately unsuccessful, were not so lacking in substance, frivolous, vexatious, or motivated by improper purpose as to warrant a costs order. Parties complied with directions, and concerns were not so unreasonable or misconceived as to justify a costs order in the protective jurisdiction context.

Court Disposition

Costs application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The costs application is dismissed after hearing.']