Locaputo v Director General, Department of Fair Trading (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 108

Locaputo v Director General, Department of Fair Trading (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 108

Although s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 empowered the Tribunal to make a costs order against a non-party witness, there were no special circumstances justifying such an order against Daniel and Rubens Delfino. They did not manage, conduct or finance the action, were not effective litigants behind the Director General, and the Tribunal had made no finding that they deliberately gave false evidence or acted in bad faith. Any interest they had in the outcome was not exceptional. There were also no special circumstances justifying costs of the costs application, including no misconduct, breach of procedural requirements, or other sufficient basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Decision on Costs
Outcome
Each application for costs is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['administrative Decisions Tribunal Costs Jurisdiction' 'non Party Costs Orders' 'costs Orders Against Witnesses' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'conveyancers Licence Review']
['administrative Law' 'costs' 'professional Licensing'] ['administrative Decisions Tribunal Costs Jurisdiction' 'non Party Costs Orders' 'costs Orders Against Witnesses' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'conveyancers Licence 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal has power to order a witness to pay costs.' 'Whether there were special circumstances justifying an award of costs against Daniel and Rubens Delfino.' 'Whether costs, if awarded, should be awarded on an indemnity basis.' 'Whether costs should be ordered in relation to the costs application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 empowered the Tribunal to make a costs order against a non-party witness, there were no special circumstances justifying such an order against Daniel and Rubens Delfino. They did not manage, conduct or finance the action, were not effective litigants behind the Director General, and the Tribunal had made no finding that they deliberately gave false evidence or acted in bad faith. Any interest they had in the outcome was not exceptional. There were also no special circumstances justifying costs of the costs application, including no misconduct, breach of procedural requirements, or other sufficient basis.

Court Disposition

Each application for costs is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Each application for costs is dismissed']