Murtagh & Anor v Taylor (No 2) (EOD) [2005] NSWADTAP 39

Murtagh & Anor v Taylor (No 2) (EOD) [2005] NSWADTAP 39

The application for costs was dismissed because the appeal raised difficult issues of statutory interpretation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, was not frivolous, vexatious, lacking in good faith, without merit, or an abuse of process, and the other matters relied on by Ms Taylor did not amount to circumstances justifying a costs order under s 110(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 or special circumstances under s 88(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in an Appeal to the Appeal Panel From a Decision of the Equal Opportunity Division / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeals
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tribunal Appeals' 'vicarious Liability Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977' 'frivolous, Vexatious or Bad Faith Proceedings' 'special Circumstances for Costs']
['administrative Law' 'anti Discrimination Law' 'costs'] ['costs in Tribunal Appeals' 'vicarious Liability Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977' 'frivolous, Vexatious or Bad Faith Proceedings' 'special Circumstances for 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

Costs Application in an Appeal to the Appeal Panel From a Decision of the Equal Opportunity Division / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful respondent should receive her costs of the appeal.' "Whether the appellants' appeal was without merit, frivolous, vexatious, lacking in good faith, or an abuse of process." 'Whether circumstances justified a costs order under s 110(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, or special circumstances warranted a costs order under s 88(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for costs was dismissed because the appeal raised difficult issues of statutory interpretation under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, was not frivolous, vexatious, lacking in good faith, without merit, or an abuse of process, and the other matters relied on by Ms Taylor did not amount to circumstances justifying a costs order under s 110(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 or special circumstances under s 88(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application by Respondent for her costs of the appeal dismissed.']