Jones and Anor v Ekermawi (No. 2) (Costs) (EOD) [2013] NSWADTAP 18

Jones and Anor v Ekermawi (No. 2) (Costs) (EOD) [2013] NSWADTAP 18

It was fair to award the respondent part of the costs of the unsuccessful appeal because the respondent was exposed to a second round of litigation at appeal level, the appeal failed, and three of the four appeal grounds were manifestly weak, although the appeal was conducted orderly and one ground had more merit, so the costs order was confined to specified categories of costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Appeal Proceedings / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Appellants' Appeal Against an Interlocutory Ruling of the Equal Opportunity Division
Outcome
Respondent's application for costs granted in part.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'appeal Costs' 'racial Vilification Complaint' 'administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, S 88']
['administrative Law' 'anti Discrimination Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Tribunal Proceedings' 'appeal Costs' 'racial Vilification Complaint' 'administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, S 88']

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 in Appeal Proceedings / On the Papers After Dismissal of the Appellants' Appeal Against an Interlocutory Ruling of the Equal Opportunity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair under s 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to award the respondent costs of the unsuccessful appeal.' 'Whether the appeal unreasonably prolonged the proceedings.' "Whether the relative strength of the appellants' appeal grounds supported a costs order." "Whether the compensatory purpose of costs and the respondent's legally assisted status supported a costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair to award the respondent part of the costs of the unsuccessful appeal because the respondent was exposed to a second round of litigation at appeal level, the appeal failed, and three of the four appeal grounds were manifestly weak, although the appeal was conducted orderly and one ground had more merit, so the costs order was confined to specified categories of costs.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for costs granted in part.

Orders

  • ["That the appellants' pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed, confined to the following: three-quarters of the costs of preparation of the submissions in reply to the appeal and of the costs of appearance of counsel at the appeal hearing; and all of the costs of the present submissions."]