Sloey v State Transit [1999] NSWADT 40

Sloey v State Transit [1999] NSWADT 40

Although none of the factors identified (complexity, being out of pocket, imbalance of resources, vigour of defence, and broad impact) alone justified an award of costs, taken together they rebut the presumption against awarding costs and justify an award of party-party costs to the complainant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Employment / Cost Application After Merits Judgment and Appeal
Outcome
Party-party costs awarded in favour of the complainant; assessment reserved.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'disability Discrimination' 'employment Discrimination']
['anti Discrimination' 'employment Law'] ['costs' 'disability Discrimination' 'employment Discrimination']

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

Disability Discrimination Employment / Cost Application After Merits Judgment and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal is functus officio with respect to costs' 'What circumstances justify an award of costs under s 114 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977']

Ratio Decidendi

Although none of the factors identified (complexity, being out of pocket, imbalance of resources, vigour of defence, and broad impact) alone justified an award of costs, taken together they rebut the presumption against awarding costs and justify an award of party-party costs to the complainant.

Court Disposition

Party-party costs awarded in favour of the complainant; assessment reserved.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal awards party-party costs in favour of the Complainant, and leaves the matter of assessment to be determined.']