Brown v Bourke Bowling Club (No 2)

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Brown v Bourke Bowling Club (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 74
Hearing dates:	On the Papers
Decision date:	08 April 2013
Jurisdiction:	Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	Conley, J Judicial Member
Decision:	The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or as assessed within 28 days from the date of these reasons.
Catchwords:	Application for costs - successful applicant
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Cases Cited:	Alramon Pty Ltd v Jonamill Pty Ltd (No 2)[2009] NSWADT, 302 ; AT v Commissioner of Police, NSW [2010] NSWC, 131; Cooper v Western Area Local Health Network[2012] NSWADT 39; Wong v Office of the Board of Studies NSW (no4) NSWADT 128
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Patricia Brown (Applicant) Bourke Bowling Club (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel P Battley (Applicant) Legal Aid NSW (Applicant) Lovett & Green Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s):	101108

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. This was a claim by the applicant who is an Aboriginal woman, of race discrimination by the respondent, which is a Registered Club. The Tribunal determined that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of her race. Written reasons for decision were provided and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant compensation in the sum of $8,000. The respondent was also ordered to provide a written apology.

1. The Tribunal directed that any submissions as to costs be filed and served and a timetable was given. The Tribunal received submissions in writing from both the applicant and the respondent.

Applicant's submissions

1. The Applicant submitted that in line with the principles identified by the Court of Appeal in AT v Commissioner of Police, NSW [2010] NSWCA 131, it would be "fair" to order the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings "with reference to the compensatory purpose of costs" as noted by Basten J. The purpose being to compensate the successful party for being caused by the other to have recourse to proceedings to obtain his or her rights.

1. The applicant submitted that the respondent's failure to comply with Tribunal directions and delay in responding to summonses unreasonably prolonged the preparation of the matter for hearing and contributed to the adjournment of the hearing set down for 23 and 24 November 2011. The applicant relies upon a "procedural chronology" to "establish that on several occasions, the Respondent failed to adhere to Tribunal timetables for the filing and service of documents and that there were repeated delays by the Respondent in its compliance with summons to produce documents". Of significant relevance the applicant claims that "The critical document sought under the summonses was ultimately provided to the Applicant on 22 November 2011, the day before the matter was due to commence for 2 days hearing. On 23 November the Respondent sought and was granted an adjournment of the hearing when the Applicant sought to tender the documents including the material produced on summons."

1. In the procedural chronology the applicant identified 9…