VE v Department of Human Services, Community Services [2011] NSWADT 60

VE v Department of Human Services, Community Services [2011] NSWADT 60

It was fair to depart from the general rule on costs because, although Community Services was not obliged to compensate VE before receiving evidence and had limited information before 31 October 2010, from that date it had all the information needed to make an informed and responsible decision about compensation. Further expense incurred by VE in maintaining the proceedings after that time, including the costs application, was attributable to Community Services, and it was unfair for VE to bear those costs from 1 November 2010.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998; Costs / Costs Determination on the Papers After Settlement and Filing of Consent Orders
Outcome
Respondent ordered to pay the applicant in accordance with the consent orders dated 1 February 2011 and to pay the applicant's costs from 1 November 2010, including costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['information Protection Principles' 'disclosure of Personal Information' 'compensation for Psychological Harm' 'tribunal Costs Discretion' 'model Litigant Obligations']
['privacy' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['information Protection Principles' 'disclosure of Personal Information' 'compensation for Psychological Harm' 'tribunal Costs Discretion' 'model Litigant Obligations']

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

Application Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998; Costs / Costs Determination on the Papers After Settlement and Filing of Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent should pay the applicant's costs after the substantive privacy proceedings settled by consent orders." 'Whether it was fair under s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to depart from the general rule that each party pays his or her own costs.' "Whether the respondent's conduct after receiving the applicant's evidence prolonged the proceedings or unnecessarily disadvantaged the applicant."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair to depart from the general rule on costs because, although Community Services was not obliged to compensate VE before receiving evidence and had limited information before 31 October 2010, from that date it had all the information needed to make an informed and responsible decision about compensation. Further expense incurred by VE in maintaining the proceedings after that time, including the costs application, was attributable to Community Services, and it was unfair for VE to bear those costs from 1 November 2010.

Court Disposition

Respondent ordered to pay the applicant in accordance with the consent orders dated 1 February 2011 and to pay the applicant's costs from 1 November 2010, including costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ["Respondent to pay the applicant in accordance with the 'consent orders' dated 1 February 2011" "Respondent is to pay the applicant 's costs of and from 1 November 2010, including the costs associated with the application for costs."]