Wilde v University of Sydney (No 2) [2004] NSWADT 16

Wilde v University of Sydney (No 2) [2004] NSWADT 16

The respondent's general costs application was refused because, although the complaint failed after a lengthy hearing and caused the respondent expense, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence that the applicant intended to harass the respondent, waste time, cause delay, conduct the proceedings vexatiously,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Arising From Dismissed Transgender Discrimination Complaint / On the Papers After Dismissal of Complaint and Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
The respondent was granted leave to file further evidence and submissions concerning costs for 28 August 2002; the respondent's application for costs was otherwise refused.
Legal Topics
['transgender Discrimination Complaint' 'costs in the Equal Opportunity Division' 'vexatious Conduct' 'unreasonable Prolonging of Proceedings' 'adjournment Caused by Alleged Criminal Incident' 'indemnity Costs']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'costs'] ['transgender Discrimination Complaint' 'costs in the Equal Opportunity Division' 'vexatious Conduct' 'unreasonable Prolonging of Proceedings' 'adjournment Caused by Alleged Criminal Incident' 'indemnity Costs']

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 Application Arising From Dismissed Transgender Discrimination Complaint / On the Papers After Dismissal of Complaint and Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal should depart from the presumption in s 114 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 that each party pay their own costs.' 'Whether the applicant conducted the proceedings vexatiously.' 'Whether the applicant was responsible for prolonging unreasonably the time taken to complete the proceedings.' "Whether the applicant's claim had no tenable basis in fact." "Whether the respondent's application for costs for 28 August 2002 should be determined before the criminal charges against the applicant were heard and determined."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's general costs application was refused because, although the complaint failed after a lengthy hearing and caused the respondent expense, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence that the applicant intended to harass the respondent, waste time, cause delay, conduct the proceedings vexatiously, or unreasonably prolong the proceedings. The costs application for 28 August 2002 was not finally determined because fairness required awaiting the outcome of the criminal charges arising from that day and giving the applicant an opportunity to respond to any further material.

Court Disposition

The respondent was granted leave to file further evidence and submissions concerning costs for 28 August 2002; the respondent's application for costs was otherwise refused.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is granted leave to file further evidence and submissions in support of its application for costs for 28 August 2002.' 'In the event that the respondent chooses to file further material in support of that application copies are to be served upon the applicant who has 14 days from the date of service...