Finch v Samios [2012] NSWADT 16

Finch v Samios [2012] NSWADT 16

Although the Applicant's original claim was not shown to have been unarguable when lodged, by the time the matter came before the Tribunal on 15 September 2011 it was untenable and should have been withdrawn then or shortly afterwards. Because the Respondents were put to unnecessary expense in attending the Tribunal on 13 October 2011, it was fair under section 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to award only the reasonable costs of that brief hearing, fixed at $500, but not broader costs of the proceedings or submissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Retail Tenancy Claim / Costs Application After the Applicant Withdrew Her Application and the Application Was Dismissed
Outcome
Costs awarded in part to the Respondents.
Legal Topics
['retail Tenancy Claim' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'assignment of Lease' 'commercial Negotiations']
['retail Leases' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['retail Tenancy Claim' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'assignment of Lease' 'commercial Negotiations']

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 Tenancy Claim / Costs Application After the Applicant Withdrew Her Application and the Application Was Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal should award costs to the Respondents under section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 and section 77A of the Retail Leases Act 1994.' "Whether the Applicant's claims had no tenable basis in fact or law or were otherwise sufficiently weak to justify a costs order." 'What amount of costs was fair having regard to the hearing on 13 October 2011 and the factors in section 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Applicant's original claim was not shown to have been unarguable when lodged, by the time the matter came before the Tribunal on 15 September 2011 it was untenable and should have been withdrawn then or shortly afterwards. Because the Respondents were put to unnecessary expense in attending the Tribunal on 13 October 2011, it was fair under section 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to award only the reasonable costs of that brief hearing, fixed at $500, but not broader costs of the proceedings or submissions.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in part to the Respondents.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is to pay the Respondent the sum of $500 as costs of and incidental to these proceedings.']