O'Brien v Building Professionals Board (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 129

O'Brien v Building Professionals Board (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 129

It was fair to order the Board to pay Mr O'Brien's costs caused by the adjournment because the Board sought the adjournment two days before the hearing after receiving senior counsel's advice, had had Mr O'Brien's evidence for three months, and the adjournment delayed resolution of Mr O'Brien's application,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Review of Disciplinary Finding / Determined on the Papers After Substantive Review Decision
Outcome
Costs application allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['costs in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'adjournment Costs' 'unsuccessful Amendment Application' 'model Litigant Obligations' 'accredited Certifier Disciplinary Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'costs' 'professional Discipline'] ['costs in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'adjournment Costs' 'unsuccessful Amendment Application' 'model Litigant Obligations' 'accredited Certifier Disciplinary Proceedings']

Source-derived case record

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 in Review of Disciplinary Finding / Determined on the Papers After Substantive Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair under s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to order the Building Professionals Board to pay costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing listed for 5 and 6 March 2009.' 'Whether it was fair to order the Building Professionals Board to pay costs of its unsuccessful application to amend its reasons for decision.' "Whether it was fair to order the Building Professionals Board to pay Mr O'Brien's costs of the principal proceedings from 1 August 2009 on the basis that the Board failed to act as a model litigant or unreasonably prolonged the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair to order the Board to pay Mr O'Brien's costs caused by the adjournment because the Board sought the adjournment two days before the hearing after receiving senior counsel's advice, had had Mr O'Brien's evidence for three months, and the adjournment delayed resolution of Mr O'Brien's application, unnecessarily disadvantaging him. It was not fair to award additional costs for the unsuccessful amendment application because a costs order would not have been justified had the application been brought in a timely manner and adjournment costs were already awarded. It was also not fair to award costs of the principal proceedings because, although the Board knew its prospects were...

Court Disposition

Costs application allowed in part.

Orders

  • ["The Building Professionals Board is to pay Mr O'Brien's costs of the adjournment of the hearing listed for 5 and 6 March 2009 as agreed or assessed."]