Flatt v Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal & Anor [2006] NSWSC 24

Flatt v Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal & Anor [2006] NSWSC 24

The review failed because Registrar Whitehead had not dealt with the question of costs when granting leave to discontinue, so it was open to Assistant Registrar Howe to deal with costs; the plaintiff did not demonstrate any ground or error in the exercise of discretion, and the orders that the plaintiff pay the costs of the proceedings and that each party bear their own costs of the earlier notice of motion were reasonably open.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Review of a Registrar's Decision Concerning Costs After Discontinuance / Notice of Motion Under Part 45 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Seeking to Set Aside Assistant Registrar Howe's Costs Order
Outcome
Notice of motion filed on 19 October 2005 dismissed.
Legal Topics
["review of Registrar's Decision" 'discontinuance' 'costs Following Discontinuance' 'exercise of Discretion']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ["review of Registrar's Decision" 'discontinuance' 'costs Following Discontinuance' 'exercise of Discretion']

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

Review of a Registrar's Decision Concerning Costs After Discontinuance / Notice of Motion Under Part 45 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Seeking to Set Aside Assistant Registrar Howe's Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Registrar Whitehead's silence on costs when granting leave to discontinue meant that costs had already been decided." 'Whether Assistant Registrar Howe was entitled to order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings.' "Whether the plaintiff demonstrated any ground or error warranting disturbance of Assistant Registrar Howe's discretionary costs orders." 'Whether delay by the second defendant in seeking costs should affect the review.']

Ratio Decidendi

The review failed because Registrar Whitehead had not dealt with the question of costs when granting leave to discontinue, so it was open to Assistant Registrar Howe to deal with costs; the plaintiff did not demonstrate any ground or error in the exercise of discretion, and the orders that the plaintiff pay the costs of the proceedings and that each party bear their own costs of the earlier notice of motion were reasonably open.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion filed on 19 October 2005 dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 19 October 2005 is dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of that notice of motion.']