Bechara v Kazzi [2021] NSWCATCD 11

Bechara v Kazzi [2021] NSWCATCD 11

The costs issues could be adequately determined on the papers because the parties had an opportunity to make submissions. Mr Bechara did not establish special circumstances warranting costs: there was no evidence of unreasonable delay, the invalidity of the termination notice was properly conceded at the hearing with legal advice, the APVO argument was relevant to access and not manifestly unreasonable or untenable, and the mere fact that the respondents had legal representation did not entitle the applicant to legal costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Determined on the Papers After Substantive Residential Tenancy Proceedings
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['special Circumstances Warranting Costs' 'dispensing With a Hearing' 'termination Notice' 'apprehended Personal Violence Order' 'legal Representation']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'residential Tenancy'] ['special Circumstances Warranting Costs' 'dispensing With a Hearing' 'termination Notice' 'apprehended Personal Violence Order' 'legal Representation']

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 / Determined on the Papers After Substantive Residential Tenancy Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should an order be made dispensing with a hearing pursuant to Section 50(2) of the NCAT Act?' 'Has Mr Bechara established that there are special circumstances warranting an order for costs in his favour?']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs issues could be adequately determined on the papers because the parties had an opportunity to make submissions. Mr Bechara did not establish special circumstances warranting costs: there was no evidence of unreasonable delay, the invalidity of the termination notice was properly conceded at the hearing with legal advice, the APVO argument was relevant to access and not manifestly unreasonable or untenable, and the mere fact that the respondents had legal representation did not entitle the applicant to legal costs.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['A hearing on costs is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'The application for costs is dismissed.']