Corrigan & Gibson v Watson

Case [2009] NSWADT 110

CITATION: Corrigan & Gibson v Watson [2009] NSWADT 110
DIVISION: General Division
PARTIES:

APPLICANTS
Mark Corrigan and Graeme Gibson

RESPONDENT
Greg Watson
FILE NUMBER: 083380
HEARING DATES: 2 April 2009
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 2 April 2009
 
DATE OF DECISION: 
18 May 2009
BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Higgins S - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: Application for costs, fairness in the circumstances
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Local Government Act 1993
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998
Legal Profession Act 2004
Local Government (General) Regulation 2005
CASES CITED: Thiess v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No 5) [1994] 1 Qd R 157
R v Gray, ex parte Marsh (1985) 157 CLR 351
Bourne v Murphy & Ors (Unreported, NSWCA, 4 December 2006)
Jeffery & Ors v Roberts (2002) NSWADT 57
Roberts v Jeffery & Ors (Unreported, NSWSC, 11 April 2003)
Cheung v The Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2000] NSWSC 1062
Beasley v Department of Education and Training [2006] VCAT 2044
Re Public Transport Corporation and Boroondara CC [2000] VCAT 472
Mornington Peninsula SC v Fox (Unreported, VCAT, 24 October 2003)
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 12
Irresistible Frocks Salon Pty Ltd v Sparbac Pty Ltd and Roche Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] NSWADT 72
The Anderson Group Pty Ltd v Tynan Motors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 120
Shorten v David Hurst Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 609
Tickell v Trifleska Pty Ltd (1990) 25 NSWLR 353
REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT
N Case, solicitor

RESPONDENT
R McCrudden, counsel
ORDERS: The Respondent’s application for costs is refused.


Introduction

1 On 23 December 2008 Mr Gibson and Mr Corrigan (the Applicants) applied to the Tribunal for Mr Watson (the Respondent) to be dismissed from his position as a councillor with the Shoalhaven City Council. The Applicants withdrew the application approximately six weeks later, before a directions hearing had been held. The Respondent applied for the Applicants to pay his legal costs on an indemnity basis saying, among other things, that the application lacked merit and was an abuse of process. The Applicants say that the matter was discontinued because the critical witness withdrew her statement.

2 Although Mr Watson is applying for costs, for convenience we have continued to refer to him as the Respondent and to Messrs Gibson and Corrigan as the Applicants. Each party filed some evidence and made detailed written submissions. We have considered the costs application ‘on the papers’: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act), s 76. We have done so because the facts are relatively clear and we are reluctant for the parties to incur further costs by attending a hearing when there has never been an appearance at the Tribunal. Our decision is to refuse the application for costs.

Background

3 Following local government elections on 13 September 2008, Mr Watson was elected as a councillor. The…

Continue reading Corrigan & Gibson v Watson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Corrigan & Gibson v Watson [2009] NSWADT 110
Case
[2009] NSWADT 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Corrigan & Gibson v Watson was before the court, where the applicants sought an order for costs against the respondent. The dispute arose from an application for an injunction to restrain the respondent from entering into a contractual agreement. The applicants, Corrigan and Gibson, argued that the respondent's actions were vexatious and that they were entitled to costs under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The court was required to determine whether the respondent's application was an abuse of process and if the applicants were entitled to costs.

The court considered the principles of fairness and justice in determining whether to grant the applicants' costs. The court examined the respondent's conduct, the merits of the case, and the impact of the proceedings on the parties. The court found that the respondent's application was not an abuse of process and that the applicants had not demonstrated a case of unfairness warranting an order for costs. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that costs orders are not used as a punitive measure but rather to achieve fairness in the circumstances.

As a result, the court refused the applicants' application for costs. The court held that the respondent's application was not vexatious, and the applicants had not shown that the costs were necessary to achieve justice. The court acknowledged the applicants' concerns but found that the principles of fairness did not require an order for costs in this case. The refusal of the application for costs did not affect the merits of the underlying dispute, which remained to be determined in further proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent's application for costs is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.