Crook v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW [No 2]

[2004] NSWCA 14

CITATION:	CROOK v CONSUMER, TRADER & TENANCY TRIBUNAL OF NSW & ANOR [NO 2] [2004] NSWCA 14
HEARING DATE(S):	9 December 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:	12 February 2004
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P; Sheller JA; Ipp JA
DECISION:	Orders proposed on 18 December 2003 to stand.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS - litigant in person
LEGISLATION CITED:	Legal Profession Act 1987 Supreme Court Rules
CASES CITED:	Cachia v Haynes & Anor (1994) 179 CLR 403
PARTIES :	David Crook - Appellant/Claimant Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales - First Respsondent/First Opponent NSW Department of Housing - Second Respondent/Second Opponent
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40977/03
COUNSEL:	In person - Appellant/Claimant Submitting appearance - First Respondent/First Opponent A Jungwirth - Second Respondent/Second Opponent
SOLICITORS:	I V Knight, Crown Solicitor - First Respondent/First Opponent M Callen - Second Respondent/Second Opponent

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 30003/03
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Master Malpass

CA 40977/03
SC 30003/03

MASON P
SHELLER JA
IPP JA

Monday, 16 February 2004

CROOK v CONSUMER, TRADER AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR [NO 2]

Judgment

1 THE COURT: The Court delivered judgment on this application granting the claimant leave to appeal and allowing the appeal with consequential orders which included an order that the second opponent pay the claimant’s costs of the hearing before the Master and of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal to this Court.

2 When the orders of the Court were pronounced, counsel for the second opponent asked the Court to re-visit the costs orders having regard to the decision of the High Court in Cachia v Haynes & Anor (1994) 179 CLR 403. In that case the High Court held that upon taxation of costs awarded in favour of an appellant who had appeared for himself in the proceedings, the costs to be taxed on a party and party basis (see now Pt 52A r32 of the Supreme Court Rules) do not include compensation for the loss of time of a litigant in person. That is not to say that there may not be out of pocket or other expenses which the successful appellant would be entitled to recover on assessment under Pt 11 Div 6 of the Legal Profession Act 1987. Accordingly, the order proposed by the Court is appropriate and should stand.

**********

Last Modified: 02/13/2004