Advanced Underpinning Pty Limited -v- Voukelatos & Anor [2001] NSWADT 100

Advanced Underpinning Pty Limited -v- Voukelatos & Anor [2001] NSWADT 100

Special circumstances warranted a costs order because the applicant obtained an interim stay conditioned on payment of rent, failed to pay that rent, allowed the respondent to incur costs retaking possession and preparing for the listed hearing, and did not promptly clarify or abandon the changed issues after possession was retaken. Fairness was achieved by party/party costs rather than indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Proceedings; Costs Application / Costs Decision After Applicant Withdrew the Application on the Hearing Date
Outcome
Costs awarded to the respondent on a party/party basis; indemnity costs not ordered.
Legal Topics
['special Circumstances for Costs' 'withdrawal of Proceedings' 'interim Stay of Possession' 'failure to Pay Rent' 'party/party Costs']
['retail Leases' 'costs' 'administrative Tribunal Procedure'] ['special Circumstances for Costs' 'withdrawal of Proceedings' 'interim Stay of Possession' 'failure to Pay Rent' 'party/party 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

Retail Lease Proceedings; Costs Application / Costs Decision After Applicant Withdrew the Application on the Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special circumstances under Section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act warranted an award of costs.' "Whether the applicant's failure to pay rent required by the interim order and later withdrawal of the application justified a costs order." 'Whether costs should be awarded on a full indemnity basis or a party/party basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances warranted a costs order because the applicant obtained an interim stay conditioned on payment of rent, failed to pay that rent, allowed the respondent to incur costs retaking possession and preparing for the listed hearing, and did not promptly clarify or abandon the changed issues after possession was retaken. Fairness was achieved by party/party costs rather than indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the respondent on a party/party basis; indemnity costs not ordered.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant is to pay the Respondent's costs on a party/party basis as assessed, unless they can reach agreement, incurred from 11 April 2001 to 7 May 2001." "The costs include the Respondent's work preparatory to and including the actual re-taking of possession on 11 April 2001, including agent's costs and...