Ekermawi v Administrative Decision Tribunal [2011] NSWSC 1503

Ekermawi v Administrative Decision Tribunal [2011] NSWSC 1503

The summons was misconceived and had to be dismissed because, insofar as it sought to appeal from the Administrative Decisions Tribunal decisions of 10 June 2010 and 4 August 2010, s 113 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 provided only for an appeal to an Appeal Panel, not to this Court. If the summons was instead intended to appeal from the Appeal Panel's decision of 6 October 2011, s 48 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 required the appeal to be commenced in the Court of Appeal. The successful Second, Third and Fourth Defendants were entitled to costs, including indemnity costs from 9 November 2011 because the Plaintiff was warned in detail by letter that the proceeding was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Appeal From Administrative Decisions Tribunal Proceedings / Summons Seeking Leave to Extend Time to Appeal; Notices of Motion by the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants' costs on the ordinary basis up to and including 9 November 2011 and thereafter on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'appeal Panel Jurisdiction' 'supreme Court Jurisdiction' 'court of Appeal' 'racial Vilification Complaints' 'costs' 'indemnity Costs']
['administrative Law' 'anti Discrimination Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['appeal From Administrative Decisions Tribunal' 'appeal Panel Jurisdiction' 'supreme Court Jurisdiction' 'court of Appeal' 'racial Vilification Complaints' 'costs' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Administrative Law Appeal From Administrative Decisions Tribunal Proceedings / Summons Seeking Leave to Extend Time to Appeal; Notices of Motion by the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from decisions of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal dated 10 June 2010 and 4 August 2010.' "Whether, if the summons was intended to appeal from the Appeal Panel's decision of 6 October 2011, the proceeding should have been commenced in the Court of Appeal." 'Whether costs, including indemnity costs after 9 November 2011, should be ordered against the Plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was misconceived and had to be dismissed because, insofar as it sought to appeal from the Administrative Decisions Tribunal decisions of 10 June 2010 and 4 August 2010, s 113 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 provided only for an appeal to an Appeal Panel, not to this Court. If the summons was instead intended to appeal from the Appeal Panel's decision of 6 October 2011, s 48 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 required the appeal to be commenced in the Court of Appeal. The successful Second, Third and Fourth Defendants were entitled to costs, including indemnity costs from 9 November 2011 because the Plaintiff was warned in detail by letter that the proceeding was...

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants' costs on the ordinary basis up to and including 9 November 2011 and thereafter on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings commenced by summons of 20 October 2011 is dismissed.' "The Plaintiff is to pay the Second, Third And Fourth Defendants' costs on the ordinary basis up to and including 9 November 2011, and thereafter on an indemnity basis."]