Barsoum v Glebe Administration Board (No. 2)

[2002] NSWADT 174

CITATION:	Barsoum -v- Glebe Administration Board (2) [2002] NSWADT 174
DIVISION:	Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Samy Barsoum RESPONDENT Glebe Administration Board
FILE NUMBER:	015041
HEARING DATES:	18/04/2002
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/10/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	09/20/2002
BEFORE:	Molloy GB - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Costs
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED:	Barsoum -v- Glebe Administration Board [2002] NSWADT19 Multicon Engineering Pty Ltd -v- Federal Airports Corporation [1996]138ALR425 Marinis -v- Jeweller [2000]NSWCA282 Wenzel -v- Australian Stock Exchange Ltd [2002] FCA353 Law Society of NSW -v- Gallagher [1999] NSWADT 8 Gizah P/L -v- AXA Trustees Ltd (No 2) [2001] NSWADT 164
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT D Flaherty, barrister
ORDERS:	1. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs incurred from and after 3 August 2001 on an indemnity basis; 2. The Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.

1 On 18 February 2002 I delivered Judgment in proceedings instituted by the Applicant as tenant against the Respondent as Landlord of certain premises in the Town Hall Arcade, Sydney.

2 Those proceedings were instituted by Application filed 5 April 2001 by the Applicant who sought an order that the Respondent pay to him damages, interest and costs. The hearing lasted three (3) days (12, 13 and 14 November 2001) and on 18 February 2002 I dismissed the application.

3 In dismissing the application I made the following supplementary order:

“Leave granted to the Respondent to re-list this matter before me within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order to argue whether the Applicant should pay the costs of the Respondent for the whole matter, or any part of the matter. Should the Respondent re-list to argue this issue then such argument will be limited to that issue the subject of the re-listing. In the event that the Respondent does not re-list for argument, then there will be no order as to costs.”

4 It is important to recognise that in this Tribunal orders for costs are only made where the Tribunal “is satisfied that there are special circumstances warranting an award of costs” (Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, Section 88). It is for that reason that the order that I made 18 February 2002 was effectively a self-executing order such that any applicant for costs in this Tribunal must make a positive application for costs in order to comply with Section 88, the old common law rule that generally “costs follow the event” not applying.

5 The Respondent applied for a costs order pursuant to the leave granted and sought an order for costs and for those costs to be paid on an indemnity basis.

CONDUCT OF THE APPLICATION

6 The application itself was heard before me on 18 April 2002, the Respondent/Applicant being represented by Counsel and the Applicant/Respondent to the application being unrepresented. The Respondent as part of its application tendered written submissions and addressed on those written submissions. At the conclusion of those submissions, the…