Civic Steel Homes v Mitra

Civic Steel Homes sought leave to appeal a decision of the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal which had denied their application for costs in a proceeding in which they were successful. The tribunal had concluded that the costs incurred by Civic Steel Homes were not “reasonable” in the absence of countervailing considerations. In the court of appeal, it was submitted that the tribunal had failed to consider a Court of Appeal ruling that a successful party who had properly engaged legal representation should have costs in the absence of countervailing considerations. It was further submitted that a tribunal member’s opinion that the outcome before him was less favourable to the “unsuccessful” parties than an offer which they had rejected was vitiation by denial of natural justice. It was also submitted that the tribunal member should have invited further submissions as to the monetary value to be ascribed to the component of the offer releasing a builder from not only claims made in the proceeding or foreshadowed, but any future claims whatever.

The court observed that the tribunal was not bound to follow the Court of Appeal ruling, and it was only if there was an error of law that leave to appeal would be granted. The court held that the tribunal had not made an error of law, and that the tribunal was entitled to consider the relative merits of the offer and the outcome before it. The court further held that the tribunal was not required to invite further submissions as to the monetary value of any component of the offer. The court concluded that the tribunal’s decision was not vitiation by natural justice, and that leave to appeal should be refused.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The tribunal’s decision to deny costs to Civic Steel Homes was upheld. The court made no order as to costs.