Legal Research
Cases
Abdou and Victorian Building Authority

Abdou and Victorian Building Authority

Case [2020] AATA 2637 2 June 2020

Costs

Statutory Construction

Judicial Review

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Abdou and Victorian Building Authority [2020] AATA 2637 (2 June 2020)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
)No: 2017/2286 and 32 others.

GENERAL DIVISION )

Re: Mouhammed Abdou and 32 others listed in Attachment A to these reasons
Applicant

And: Victorian Building Authority
Respondent
CORRIGENDUM TO DECISION OF 2 JUNE 2020
TRIBUNAL: Deputy President S A Forgie
DATE OF CORRIGENDUM: 9 July 2020
PLACE: Melbourne

The Tribunal amends its decision of 2 June 2020 by:
1.at Attachment A row number 18 in the ‘file number’ column removing ‘2017/0144’ and inserting ‘2017/0833’.
2.at Attachment A row number 29 in the ‘file number’ column inserting ‘2018/3186’.
3.at Attachment A row number 30 in the ‘file number’ column inserting ‘2018/4924’.

……[sgd]……………………
S A FORGIE
Deputy President

Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/2286 and 32 others listed in Attachment A to these reasons
Re:Mouhammed Abdou and 32 others listed in Attachment A to these reasons
APPLICANT

AndVictorian Building Authority
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President S A Forgie
Date of decision: 2 June 2020
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal decides to:
refuse to make an order for costs against the respondent in each of the 33 applications listed in Attachment A to these reasons.

……………[sgd]………………………
Deputy President S A Forgie
Catchwords
COSTS – mutual recognition – whether costs should be ordered under s 35 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 – meaning of costs – who can be awarded costs – meaning of proceedings – whether actions of a party in proceedings considered unreasonable – costs not awarded.
Legislation
Acts Interpretation Act 1901; s 33(2A)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975; s 42C; s 69A
Building Act 1993 (Vic)
Federal Court Rules 2011; Schedule 1
Freedom of Information Act 1982
Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1995
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2015 (Vic)
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2014
Mutual Recognition Act 1992; s 7; s 29; s 35
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Supreme Court (General and Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic)
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)
Water Services Licensing Act 1995 (WA)
Water Services Licensing (Plumbers Licensing and Plumbing Standards) Regulations 2000 (WA)
Cases
Ada Evans Chambers Pty Ltd v Santisi [2014] NSWSC 538
Agapis v A Deputy District Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia at Perth [2016] HCATrans 154
Alexandra Private GeriatricHospital Pty Ltd v Blewett [1984] FCA 223; (1984) 2 FCR 368; 56 ALR 265
Andriotis v Victorian Building Authority [2018] FCAFC 24
Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of New South Wales (1908) 6 CLR 469
Australian Securities Commission v Aust-Home Investments Limited [1993] FCA 585; (1993) 44 FCR 194; 116 ALR 523; 11 ACSR 136
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No. 2) [1995] FCA 350; (1995) 57 FCR 119; 135 ALR 160
Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Janet Pentelow [2019] HCA 29; (2019) 93 ALJR 1007
Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Abdou and Victorian Building Authority

Details

AGLC: Abdou and Victorian Building Authority [2020] AATA 2637
Case: [2020] AATA 2637
Decision Date: 2 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceeding concerned an application by the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) for costs against Mr. Abdou following the dismissal of his application for review. The VBA sought costs pursuant to section 35 of the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992* (Cth), arguing that Mr. Abdou's actions in the proceedings were unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether costs should be awarded against Mr. Abdou under section 35 of the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992*. This required the Tribunal to consider the meaning of "costs" and "proceedings" within the context of the Act, and to determine if Mr. Abdou's conduct during the proceedings could be characterised as unreasonable, thereby justifying an order for costs in favour of the VBA.

The Tribunal found that the VBA was not entitled to an award of costs under section 35 of the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992*. The Tribunal interpreted the term "proceedings" in section 35 to refer to the substantive merits of the application for review, rather than the conduct of the parties during the proceedings. As Mr. Abdou's application had been dismissed on its merits, the Tribunal concluded that the threshold for awarding costs under section 35 had not been met. Consequently, no order for costs was made.

Orders