BDO v Public Guardian (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 89

BDO v Public Guardian (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 89

It would not be fair to award costs against the Public Guardian because its conduct was consistent with model litigant obligations, did not disadvantage other parties or unreasonably delay proceedings, its positions were reasonably arguable and warranted by the evidence, and, considering the complexity and protective context, costs should not be ordered.

Parties
Father: BDO; Mother / Joined Party: CBY; Respondent: Public Guardian; Guardian Ad Litem: B Ramjan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs in Guardianship Matter / Decision After Substantive Guardianship Review
Outcome
Costs application refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Protective Jurisdiction, Guardianship, Administrative Review
Administrative Law Guardianship Law Costs Protective Jurisdiction Guardianship Administrative Review

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BDO

Father

CBY

Mother / Joined Party

Public Guardian

Respondent

B Ramjan

Guardian Ad Litem

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs in Guardianship Matter / Decision After Substantive Guardianship Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should make an order for costs against the Public Guardian under s 88 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) in the context of a guardianship administrative review
  2. 2 Whether conduct of the Public Guardian unnecessarily disadvantaged another party or unreasonably prolonged proceedings
  3. 3 The effect of the nature and complexity of proceedings on costs

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be fair to award costs against the Public Guardian because its conduct was consistent with model litigant obligations, did not disadvantage other parties or unreasonably delay proceedings, its positions were reasonably arguable and warranted by the evidence, and, considering the complexity and protective context, costs should not be ordered.

Court Disposition

Costs application refused

Orders

  • The application for an order of costs is refused.