Titus v Eddington (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAP 287

Titus v Eddington (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAP 287

The Appeal Panel dismissed the respondent's costs application because the appeal, although unsuccessful and involving numerous and amended grounds, was conducted within a reasonable timeframe, was not unreasonably diverted into unnecessary additional work, involved relatively complex factual and expert valuation...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs on Appeal / Respondent's Application for Costs of the Appeal Decided on the Papers After the Appellants' Appeal Was Dismissed
Outcome
The respondent's application for an order that the appellants pay the costs of the appeal was dismissed; the costs application was decided on the papers and a hearing was dispensed with.
Legal Topics
['special Circumstances for Costs in Ncat' 'costs of Appeal' 'appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division' 'reallocation of Unit Entitlements in a Strata Scheme']
['civil Procedure' 'tribunal Procedure' 'costs' 'strata Schemes'] ['special Circumstances for Costs in Ncat' 'costs of Appeal' 'appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division' 'reallocation of Unit Entitlements in a Strata Scheme']

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 on Appeal / Respondent's Application for Costs of the Appeal Decided on the Papers After the Appellants' Appeal Was Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there were special circumstances warranting an award of costs of the appeal against the appellants under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' "Whether the appellants' numerous and amended grounds of appeal, and their failure on all grounds, made the appeal misconceived, lacking in substance, untenable, frivolous or vexatious, or caused unnecessary disadvantage to the respondent." 'Whether the costs application should be decided on the papers with a hearing dispensed with.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel dismissed the respondent's costs application because the appeal, although unsuccessful and involving numerous and amended grounds, was conducted within a reasonable timeframe, was not unreasonably diverted into unnecessary additional work, involved relatively complex factual and expert valuation issues, and could not reasonably be described as misconceived, lacking in substance, untenable, frivolous, vexatious, or as causing unnecessary disadvantage. The appeal was not out of the ordinary and therefore special circumstances warranting a costs order did not exist under s 60.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for an order that the appellants pay the costs of the appeal was dismissed; the costs application was decided on the papers and a hearing was dispensed with.

Orders

  • ['The application for an order for costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellants is dismissed.' 'The application concerning costs of the appeal is decided on the papers and a hearing is dispensed with.']