Insley v State Electoral Commissioner & Ors (No. 2) [2001] NSWADT 24

Insley v State Electoral Commissioner & Ors (No. 2) [2001] NSWADT 24

The Tribunal held that neither the success of Mr Insley nor the claims put forward by him or Ms Malicki amounted to special circumstances; unsubstantiated allegations or the incurrence of legal costs alone were insufficient. Accordingly, it declined to exercise its discretion to award costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Decision (costs Determination)
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
['costs' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'elections' 'tribunal Procedure']
['administrative Law' 'local Government Law'] ['costs' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'elections' 'tribunal Procedure']

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 / Post Decision (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special circumstances exist to warrant an award of costs under s88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 in proceedings under s329 of the Local Government Act 1993']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that neither the success of Mr Insley nor the claims put forward by him or Ms Malicki amounted to special circumstances; unsubstantiated allegations or the incurrence of legal costs alone were insufficient. Accordingly, it declined to exercise its discretion to award costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • ['No order as to costs']