Brown v Wingecarribee Shire Council (No 2)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Brown v Wingecarribee Shire Council (No 2) [2020] NSWCATAD 225

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

9 September 2020

Decision date:

09 September 2020

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

S Goodman SC, Senior Member

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 a hearing on the issue of costs is dispensed with.

(2) The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $1750.

Catchwords:

COSTS – administrative review proceedings – whether special circumstances established – fixed sum costs order

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, ss 36, 50, 60

Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, s 72

Cases Cited:

203 Castlereagh Street Pty Limited v Skybloo Holdings Pty Limited [2017] NSWCATAP 29

Amos v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWCATAD 101

Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29; (2019) 93 ALJR 1007

Brown v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2020] NSWCATAD 102

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hattersley (2001) 51 NSWLR 333;

ENN v Commissioner of Police (No.2) [2020] NSWCATAD 145

Hoggett v Campbelltown City Council [2019] NSWCATAD 258

Sandy v Kiama Municipal Council [2019] NSWCATAD 49

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Brian Brown (Applicant)
Wingecarribee Shire Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Applicant (Self Represented)
Respondent (Self Represented)

File Number(s):

2019/00356808

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. On 9 April 2020, reasons were published in Brown v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2020] NSWCATAD 102, affirming the decision of the respondent Council to provide access to two reports only by way of inspection.

2. The Council subsequently applied for an order for costs. The Tribunal made directions for the filing and service of submissions and evidence on the Council’s application, with such submissions to address whether it was appropriate for the Tribunal to determine the Council’s application on the papers.

3. The costs sought by the Council are costs for the work performed by its general counsel, Mr Lacy, in accordance with the principle recognised in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hattersley (2001) 51 NSWLR 333; see also Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29; (2019) 93 ALJR 1007 at [47], [50]. The Council also seeks an order for costs in a fixed sum. For the reasons set out below, it is appropriate to order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $1750.

Determination on the papers

4. Under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2013 (NCAT Act), the Tribunal may make an order dispensing with a hearing if it is satisfied that the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties by considering any written submissions or any other documents or material lodged with or provided to the Tribunal.

5. The Council indicated in its submissions its view that it was appropriate for the Tribunal determine the Council’s application on the papers. The applicant did not address this issue.