Thalassa Pty Limited v Hawkesbury River Marina Pty Limited (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 90

Thalassa Pty Limited v Hawkesbury River Marina Pty Limited (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 90

Special circumstances justifying a costs award against the applicant existed, comprising (1) failure to adduce evidence supporting use of premises as required, (2) failure to adduce evidence of promotion of marina as shopping centre, and (3) persistence with a claim clearly barred in part by the limitation section, despite being put on notice. These warranted an order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.

Parties
Applicant: Thalassa Pty Ltd; Respondent: Hawkesbury River Marina Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Decision on Costs After Substantive Determination
Outcome
Costs ordered against applicant
Legal Topics
Costs, Definition of Retail Shopping Centre, Limitation Periods, Evidentiary Requirements
Retail Leases Administrative Law Costs Definition of Retail Shopping Centre Limitation Periods Evidentiary Requirements

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thalassa Pty Ltd

Applicant

Hawkesbury River Marina Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Decision on Costs After Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances exist to warrant an award of costs under the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 s 88
  2. 2 Definition of 'premises' and 'retail shopping centre' under the Retail Leases Act 1994
  3. 3 Application of limitation period under s 71(2) of the Retail Leases Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances justifying a costs award against the applicant existed, comprising (1) failure to adduce evidence supporting use of premises as required, (2) failure to adduce evidence of promotion of marina as shopping centre, and (3) persistence with a claim clearly barred in part by the limitation section, despite being put on notice. These warranted an order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered against applicant

Orders

  • The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent as agreed or as assessed, such costs to include the costs of this hearing 11 April 2005.