Building Professionals Board v Ball (No 2) (GD)
Case
•
[2009] NSWADTAP 8
•23 February 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Building Professionals Board v Ball (No 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 8
[2009] NSWADTAP 8
23 February 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Building Professionals Board v Ball (No 2), the Building Professionals Board sought to discipline an individual, Mr Ball, who was an accredited certifier. The Board's application was dismissed by the tribunal, and the Board appealed to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The Board sought an order for costs at first instance and on appeal, and the tribunal had to determine the appropriate costs to be awarded.
The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the Board was entitled to costs at first instance and on appeal, and if so, the amount of those costs. The tribunal also had to consider whether the Board should be granted leave to adduce further evidence.
In its decision, the tribunal noted that the Board was entitled to costs at first instance, as the Board had been successful in having Mr Ball's accreditation revoked. The tribunal also noted that the Board was not entitled to costs on appeal, as the appeal had not been entirely successful. The tribunal further found that the Board should be granted leave to adduce further evidence, as the evidence was necessary to establish the Board's case.
The tribunal made an order granting leave for the appeal to extend to the merits, granting leave for the Board to adduce further evidence, ordering that the Board was to pay the Respondent's costs, as agreed or assessed, relating to the proceedings at first instance, and making no order as to the costs of the appeal.
The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the Board was entitled to costs at first instance and on appeal, and if so, the amount of those costs. The tribunal also had to consider whether the Board should be granted leave to adduce further evidence.
In its decision, the tribunal noted that the Board was entitled to costs at first instance, as the Board had been successful in having Mr Ball's accreditation revoked. The tribunal also noted that the Board was not entitled to costs on appeal, as the appeal had not been entirely successful. The tribunal further found that the Board should be granted leave to adduce further evidence, as the evidence was necessary to establish the Board's case.
The tribunal made an order granting leave for the appeal to extend to the merits, granting leave for the Board to adduce further evidence, ordering that the Board was to pay the Respondent's costs, as agreed or assessed, relating to the proceedings at first instance, and making no order as to the costs of the appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Judicial Review
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors [2010] NSWADT 1
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Tennent v Moukhlina (No 2) (Costs) (RLD)
[2009] NSWADTAP 74
Law Society of NSW v Koffel (No 2)
[2010] NSWADT 263
Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors
[2010] NSWADT 1
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
6
Building Professionals Board v Ball
[2008] NSWADT 154
Building Professionals Board v Ball
[2008] NSWADTAP 70
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge
[2000] NSWADTAP 5