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

Crook (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision made by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW (the respondent). The dispute concerned an application for costs made by Crook, who was a litigant in person, following proceedings before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Tribunal had erred in law by refusing to award costs to Crook, despite finding that the respondent had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings. Specifically, the Court had to consider the principles governing the award of costs to litigants in person, particularly where unreasonable conduct by the opposing party is established.

The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had misconstrued the relevant legislative provisions and the principles of administrative law concerning costs. It held that a litigant in person is not automatically disentitled to costs, and that where a party has acted unreasonably, an award of costs may be appropriate to compensate for the additional expense and effort incurred by the other party. The Court emphasised that the purpose of costs is to indemnify a successful party against the expense of litigation, and that this principle applies even to litigants in person in appropriate circumstances.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the orders proposed on 18 December 2003 should stand, indicating that the decision of the Tribunal was set aside and that the matter would be remitted for redetermination of the costs order.