DUBOW v FITNESS FIRST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD AND 1 OR [2007] NSWSC 1390

DUBOW v FITNESS FIRST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD AND 1 OR [2007] NSWSC 1390

The time for the Plaintiff to appeal from the CTTT's costs order should be extended and that order quashed; appropriate costs orders require the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs for a limited period of delay, but also require the Defendant to pay half of the Plaintiff's costs of these Supreme Court proceedings. No indemnity basis was justified as Defendant's conduct was not unreasonable, and no costs were ordered against either the Plaintiff's solicitor or the Tribunal, as neither met the requisite threshold of misconduct or impropriety.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Costs and Extended Orders After Reasons Delivered
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part—Time to appeal extended, CTTT costs order quashed, specific costs orders made between parties, no indemnity or tribunal costs orders, execution of orders stayed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'extension of Time' 'tribunal Appeals' 'legal Practitioner Misconduct']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'extension of Time' 'tribunal Appeals' 'legal Practitioner Misconduct']

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 / Judgment on Costs and Extended Orders After Reasons Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended for the Plaintiff to appeal from the Tribunal's costs order" 'Appropriate disposition of costs relating to the delay' 'Whether costs should be on an indemnity basis owing to conduct of the parties' 'Whether an order for costs should be made against legal practitioners acting for the Plaintiff' 'Whether the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal should be ordered to pay costs due to its conduct/errors']

Ratio Decidendi

The time for the Plaintiff to appeal from the CTTT's costs order should be extended and that order quashed; appropriate costs orders require the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs for a limited period of delay, but also require the Defendant to pay half of the Plaintiff's costs of these Supreme Court proceedings. No indemnity basis was justified as Defendant's conduct was not unreasonable, and no costs were ordered against either the Plaintiff's solicitor or the Tribunal, as neither met the requisite threshold of misconduct or impropriety.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part—Time to appeal extended, CTTT costs order quashed, specific costs orders made between parties, no indemnity or tribunal costs orders, execution of orders stayed.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time for the Plaintiff to appeal from the order of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal made on 5 May 2005 (costs order).' 'Quash the order of the CTTT made on 5 May 2005 requiring the Plaintiff to pay 75% of Fitness First Australia Pty Ltd’s costs.' 'Plaintiff to pay the costs of Fitness First...