Linnell v Seachem Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 178

Linnell v Seachem Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 178

It would not be fair to order costs against the Applicant under section 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997; the proceedings were not conducted vexatiously, the claim was genuinely prosecuted, there was an arguable basis in law and fact, and neither conduct nor settlement rejection warrants...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Patricia Linnell; Respondent: Seachem Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Substantive Hearing, Written Submissions, Determination on Papers
Outcome
Application for costs refused
Legal Topics
Costs Applications, Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Equal Opportunity Division
Anti Discrimination Administrative Law Costs Applications Sexual Harassment Victimisation Equal Opportunity Division

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Linnell

Applicant

Seachem Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Substantive Hearing, Written Submissions, Determination on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant conducted the proceedings vexatiously
  2. 2 Whether it is fair to award costs against the Applicant under section 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant’s claim had no tenable basis in fact or law

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be fair to order costs against the Applicant under section 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997; the proceedings were not conducted vexatiously, the claim was genuinely prosecuted, there was an arguable basis in law and fact, and neither conduct nor settlement rejection warrants departure from the general rule in the Equal Opportunity Division.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused

Orders

  • The application for costs is refused