Ersoy v Bonzalie

CITATION:	Ersoy v Bonzalie [2010] NSWADT 106
DIVISION:	Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Aslihan Ersoy and Neslihan Ersoy (075149) Eddie Bonzalie (085030) RESPONDENT Eddie Bonzalie (085030) Aslihan Ersoy and Neslihan Ersoy (075149)
FILE NUMBER:	075149 and 085030
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	15 February 2010
DATE OF DECISION:	30 April 2010
BEFORE:	Callaghan P, SC, Deputy President; Fagg N - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Costs – no special circumstances
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
CASES CITED:	Dykes & Wildie v Heatherway Pty Ltd (No.2) [2007] NSWADTAP 46
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS:	Application for costs dismissed

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 In the Decision [2010] NSWADT 2 in these proceedings published by the Registrar on 4 January 2010 (“the Decision”), when all other issues were disposed of, the issue of costs was reserved. Reservation of the costs issue was subject to the following comments in paragraph 82 of the Decision and directions in paragraph 83 of the Decision:

“82…Submissions as to costs in relation to these proceedings have not been made and that issue should be reserved; nevertheless, I make it clear, as may be apparent from what I have written above, that my present view, subject to such application and supporting material that may be lodged, is that there is nothing in these proceedings or their outcome that, consistently with s88(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, would warrant an award of costs.

83 In relation to costs I direct that any application be made in writing with all evidence and submissions relied on within 21 days of the delivery of this Decision, that any response be made in writing with all evidence and submissions relied on within 21 days thereafter and that any such application be decided on the papers.”

2 I was recently informed that the Tribunal had received a letter dated 25 January 2010 on behalf of Ms Aslihan Ersoy and Ms Neslihan Ersoy, the Applicants in proceedings 075149 and the Respondents in proceedings 085030, lodged on their behalf by their father, Mr Ali Ersoy. That letter is in the following terms:

“We would like to discuss the tribunal’s decision in regards to the legal costs by separating it into 2 parts.

Part 1 is in regards to our matter 075149, where the letter received from Carters law firm is the original application for this matter.

a. The letter from Carters law firm forced the lessee to stop the lessor from locking out the lessee.

b. The tribunal found the letter from Carters law firm to be a threat to the lessee.

The matter 075149 was:

a. Estoppel set aside.

b. Estoppel set aside no legal affect.

Therefore, it is the lessor’s responsibility to pay the legal costs of the lessee, as the lessee was forced to open the case and as of the tribunal’s decision which is outlined above.

Part 2 is in regards to matter 085030, which is subject to appeal by us.

We had requested a judicial…