Gleeson v The Owners – Strata Plan No 48226 (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 268
The application for costs was dismissed as r 38 did not apply because there was no specific claim for payment of more than $30,000.00, and no special circumstances sufficient to warrant departure from the usual rule as to costs under s 60 could be established from the appellants' submissions or the conduct of the proceedings.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 November 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Costs Determination Following Substantive Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Application for costs dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['costs on Appeal' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedures']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Substantive Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the appellants are entitled to an order for costs in appeal and in the original Tribunal proceedings' 'Whether r 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) applies where the amount in dispute is alleged to be more than $30,000' 'Whether special circumstances exist justifying a costs order under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)']
Ratio Decidendi
The application for costs was dismissed as r 38 did not apply because there was no specific claim for payment of more than $30,000.00, and no special circumstances sufficient to warrant departure from the usual rule as to costs under s 60 could be established from the appellants' submissions or the conduct of the proceedings.
Court Disposition
Application for costs dismissed
Orders
- ['A hearing on the issue of costs is dispensed with.' "The appellants' application for costs is dismissed."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment