Chand v Rail Corporation of New South Wales No 3

Chand v Rail Corporation of New South Wales No 3 involved a dispute between Ms Chand and RailCorp, which was brought before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The primary issue was the failure of the Tribunal to determine RailCorp's applications for costs related to two adjournments at first instance, as well as other related costs orders. RailCorp sought leave to appeal the Tribunal's decision out of time and to challenge the merits of the Tribunal's failure to determine its costs applications. Additionally, RailCorp requested suppression of the names of its witnesses and related orders.

The court was required to decide whether the Tribunal had the authority to award costs in relation to proceedings at first instance and whether it was appropriate to suppress the names of RailCorp's witnesses. The court considered the scope of the Tribunal's powers under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and relevant case law. It also examined the principles governing the suppression of witnesses' names and the public interest in open justice.

The court held that the Tribunal did have the power to award costs in relation to proceedings at first instance. However, the court found that the Tribunal had not adequately considered RailCorp's applications for costs related to the two adjournments. Consequently, the court granted RailCorp leave to appeal out of time and on the merits of the Tribunal's failure to determine its costs applications. The court also ruled that the names of RailCorp's witnesses should not be suppressed, as there was no compelling reason to do so in this case.

The orders of the court were that leave was granted for RailCorp to appeal out of time against the Tribunal’s failure to determine its costs application in relation to two adjournments at first instance. Leave was also granted for the appeal to extend to the merits of the Tribunal’s failure to determine RailCorp’s costs applications in relation to two adjournments at first instance. Ms Chand was ordered to pay RailCorp’s costs of the two adjournment applications as agreed or as assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004. The remaining applications for costs were refused, and RailCorp’s application for suppression and related orders was also refused.