Coogee Bay Village v Profilio (RLD)

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Coogee Bay Village v Profilio (RLD) [2011] NSWADTAP 67

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Decision date:

30 December 2011

Jurisdiction:

Appeal Panel - Internal

Before:

Deputy President David Patten
P Moloney Judicial Member
M Lonie Judicial Member

Decision:

1. Set aside orders made by the Tribunal on 14 January 2011 and 31 March 2011.

2.In lieu thereof, order that the Respondents pay one third of the Appellant's costs at first instance.

3.Order that the Respondents pay the Appellant's costs of the appeal.

4.All costs to be on a party and party basis as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed.

5.In relation to the appeal the Respondents are to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.

Catchwords:

Costs - appeal and first instance - offer of compromise

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Suitors Fund Act 1951

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Coogee Bay Village Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Joe Profilio (First Respondent)
Rozi Sajko (Second Respondent)

File Number(s):

119015

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Appeal Panel on 7 September 2011 upheld the appeal and in lieu of orders previously made by the Tribunal ordered that the Application be dismissed. The Appellant was given leave to apply for an order for costs within 21 days.

1. On 28 September there was filed in the Registry a document headed "Appellant's Submissions on Costs, Interests (sic), Back Rent and Cleaning and Repair of Premises".

1. In relation to the claim made in the submissions for back rent, cleaning and repairs, we should say at once that there was no evidence to support such claim which is not, in any event, a matter we can deal with as incidental to the appeal. If the Appellant wishes to pursue this claim it will need to be the subject of a first instance application to the Tribunal.

1. In relation to costs of the appeal, the Appeal Panel has jurisdiction under s. 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act (ADT Act) and in relation to costs below, the Appeal Panel has jurisdiction under s.114 of the ADT Act to set aside costs orders made below and make an order in substitution.

1. The application for costs received in the Registry was signed by Mr Christopher Alexandrou "agent for the Appellant". The Respondents in their submission on the costs issue received by the Registry on 19 October contend that Mr Alexandrou, who they state to be a director of the Appellant, was not entitled to sign a submission as to costs on its behalf. It was asserted that Mr Alexandrou required prior permission from the Tribunal to act as agent and this had not occurred. The argument seemed to follow that accordingly the appellant had failed to make submissions as to costs within 21 days; that the order in default of submissions that there be no order as to costs applies; and that the Appeal Panel is functus officio as to any further consideration of the matter.

1. On the basis that Mr…