Ultra Modern Developments v Donmap Digital Images & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1079

Ultra Modern Developments v Donmap Digital Images & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1079

The appeal failed because the plaintiff did not successfully appeal the Tribunal's dismissal of the cross-claim and could not challenge that jurisdictional decision in an appeal directed only to costs; the Tribunal had express statutory power to award costs in relation to proceedings even where it lacked jurisdiction over the claim; and no error was shown in the discretionary costs orders made in favour of the first defendant or the limited costs order made in favour of the third defendant. The Court was also not satisfied that s 67 permitted an appeal on costs only.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal / Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
The proceedings are dismissed.
Legal Topics
['tribunal Jurisdiction' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'transfer to District Court']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Proceedings'] ['tribunal Jurisdiction' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'costs Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'transfer to District Court']

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

Appeal From Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal / Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's cross-claim against the first defendant." 'Whether the Tribunal had power to award costs where it had found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the cross-claim.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in ordering the plaintiff to pay costs to the first defendant, including indemnity costs after 31 January 2003.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in ordering the plaintiff to pay the third defendant's costs of the day." 'Whether an appeal on a question of costs only is open under s 67 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the plaintiff did not successfully appeal the Tribunal's dismissal of the cross-claim and could not challenge that jurisdictional decision in an appeal directed only to costs; the Tribunal had express statutory power to award costs in relation to proceedings even where it lacked jurisdiction over the claim; and no error was shown in the discretionary costs orders made in favour of the first defendant or the limited costs order made in favour of the third defendant. The Court was also not satisfied that s 67 permitted an appeal on costs only.

Court Disposition

The proceedings are dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']