CITATION: Alramon Pty Ltd v Jonamill Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 302 DIVISION: Retail Leases Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Alramon Pty Ltd
Jonamill Pty LtdFILE NUMBER: 085020 HEARING DATES: On the papers
DATE OF DECISION:
7 December 2009BEFORE: Rickards K - Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Costs LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 CASES CITED: Salon Today Pty Ltd v MMIR Pty Ltd [2009] NSWADT 71
Zeaiter Holdings Pty Ltd v Satchithanantham (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 71
Satchithanantham v Zeaiter Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] ADTAP 53REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
S Stanton, solicitor
M Sneddon, solicitorORDERS: 1. Each party is to pay its own costs in the proceedings
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 Orders were made in favour of the Applicant in these proceedings on 30 April 2009.
2 At the time, it was stated that there would be no order as to costs unless either party filed and served written submissions within 14 days.
3 The Applicant filed written submissions seeking a costs order in its favour. An appeal was subsequently lodged by the Respondent, which has now been determined in favour of the Applicant.
4 The Respondent has subsequently filed submissions in reply on the question of costs.
5 The main provision relating to costs in the Tribunal is section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (“the ADT Act”).
6 Pursuant to the ADT Act, the general rule has always been that each party bears its own costs. The previous section 88 of the ADT Act permitted the Tribunal to make an order that one party pay the costs of another party but only if “special circumstances” existed. The question of what constituted “special circumstances” justifying an order for costs was the subject of a number of previous decisions at first instance and upon appeal, which need not be recited here.
7 Since January 2009, the newly amended section 88 (1A) of the ADT Act has provided that the Tribunal may award costs in relation to proceedings before it, but only if it is satisfied that it is “fair to do so” having regard to five defined factors which may permit an order for costs:
a. the manner in which a party has conducted the proceedings
b. whether a party has been responsible for unreasonably prolonging the time taken to complete the proceedings
c. the relevant strengths of the claims made by each of the parties, including whether a party has made a claim that has no tenable basis in fact or law
d. the nature and complexity of the proceedings, and
e. any other matter that the Tribunal considers relevant.
8 The Tribunal’s Practice Note 22 contains guidelines concerning costs. Paragraph 5 of this Practice Note recites the terms of section 88(1A) and confirms that many of those matters now listed in this section are similar to the “special circumstances” previously identified by the Tribunal as justifying an award of costs under the old provisions.
9 Unless there is some particular…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Alramon Pty Ltd v Jonamill Pty Ltd (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWADT 302
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to resolve several legal issues, including the interpretation of contractual terms related to cost-sharing and the principles governing the allocation of costs in litigation. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the terms of the contract between the parties entitled either party to recover costs from the other and, if so, to what extent. Additionally, the court considered the standard approach to costs in Australian litigation, including whether there were any exceptional circumstances that might warrant a deviation from the usual cost-sharing rules.
In delivering its judgment, the court found that the contractual terms did not explicitly address the allocation of litigation costs. The court further determined that, in the absence of any special circumstances, the general rule that each party bears its own costs applied. The court held that neither party was entitled to recover costs from the other and that, therefore, each party should bear its own legal expenses. The court's reasoning was grounded in established legal principles and the specific terms of the contract, which did not provide for cost recovery in litigation.
As a result of the court's decision, the order made was that each party is to bear its own costs in the proceedings. This means that neither Alramon nor Jonamill is entitled to reimbursement of legal costs from the opposing party, aligning with the general principle that parties bear their own expenses unless otherwise specified in a contract or by law.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Each party is to pay its own costs in the proceedings
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.