GHI v ABC trading as DEF - [2018] NSWCATAD 8

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: GHI v ABC trading as DEF [2018] NSWCATAD 8
Hearing dates: 25 October 2017 and on the papers
Date of orders: 10 January 2018
Decision date: 10 January 2018
Before: A Scahill, Senior Member
Decision:
The Applicant Mr GHI is to pay the Respondent Ms ABC $3200 within 21 days of the publication of this decision by way of costs under section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
The Tribunal orders pursuant to section 64(1) (a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 that the names of Mr GHI, Ms ABC and DEF not be published in any reporting of the matter – other than to the parties themselves.
Catchwords: Costs; Confidentiality
Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Cases Cited: Australian Careers Institute Pty Ltd v Australian Skill Quality Authority (2016) 70 AAR 276
Aydemir v Redegalli [2011] NSWADT 198
CEU v University of Technology Sydney [2017] NSW CA 280
Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 282
Cripps v G & M Dawson [2006] NSWCA 81
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133
Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143
George v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 76
IMS FX Services Pty Ltd v ASIC (2016) 70 AAR 197
Kanan J.M v Australia Post and Telecommunications Union [1992] FCA 539;43 IR57
Langley v Niland and Anor (1981) 2 NSWLR104
State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69
Category: Costs
Parties: Applicant for costs: Ms ABC
Respondent to application for costs: Mr GHI
Representation: Applicant: Ms Gabriel, solicitor, ELG Legal
Respondent: Mr GHI self-represented

File Number(s): 2017/290410
Publication restriction: The Tribunal orders pursuant to section 64(1) (a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 that the names of Mr GHI, Ms ABC and DEF not be published in any reporting of the matter – other than to the parties themselves.

Judgment

Application for Costs and Confidentiality orders

This decision deals with an application for costs made by Ms ABC under section 60 and an application for confidentiality made by Mr GHI under section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CATA).

Background to the matter

Mr GHI complained to Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) in January 2017 that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his sex (male) in the refusal of goods and services by Ms ABC trading as DEF. Ms ABC, through DEF, runs dance classes. Mr GHI had been advised by letter in January 2016 by the proprietor of DEF, Ms ABC, that he should not return to classes because of his behaviour.
Mr GHI’s complaint was declined after investigation by the Acting President of the ADB on 24 August 2017 as lacking in substance.
The letter stated:

“The reasons for my decision is that, having considered all of the information provided to the Board by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading GHI v ABC trading as DEF

Details

AGLC: GHI v ABC trading as DEF [2018] NSWCATAD 8
Case: [2018] NSWCATAD 8
Decision Date: 10 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

GHI, the applicant, brought a proceeding against ABC, trading as DEF, the respondent, in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The applicant sought a range of remedies, including declarations, injunctions, and damages, in relation to the respondent's alleged failure to comply with certain obligations under a contract for the sale of goods. The respondent denied liability and counterclaimed for costs. The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's proceeding was frivolous or vexatious, and whether the applicant was entitled to an order for costs. The Tribunal held that the applicant's proceeding was not frivolous or vexatious. However, it found that the applicant was not entitled to an order for costs as the applicant had not succeeded in the proceeding. The Tribunal held that the proceeding was brought in good faith, and that the applicant had not acted unreasonably in bringing the proceeding. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent's counterclaim for costs was successful. The Tribunal ordered that the applicant pay the respondent $3200 in costs and that the names of the parties not be published in any reporting of the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicant Mr GHI is to pay the Respondent Ms ABC $3200 within 21 days of the publication of this decision by way of costs under section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

The Tribunal orders pursuant to section 64(1) (a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 that the names of Mr GHI, Ms ABC and DEF not be published in any reporting of the matter – other than to the parties themselves.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	GHI v ABC trading as DEF [2018] NSWCATAD 8
Hearing dates:	25 October 2017 and on the papers
Date of orders:	10 January 2018
Decision date:	10 January 2018
Before:	A Scahill, Senior Member
Decision:	The Applicant Mr GHI is to pay the Respondent Ms ABC $3200 within 21 days of the publication of this decision by way of costs under section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The Tribunal orders pursuant to section 64(1) (a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 that the names of Mr GHI, Ms ABC and DEF not be published in any reporting of the matter – other than to the parties themselves.
Catchwords:	Costs; Confidentiality
Legislation Cited:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Cases Cited:	Australian Careers Institute Pty Ltd v Australian Skill Quality Authority (2016) 70 AAR 276 Aydemir v Redegalli [2011] NSWADT 198 CEU v University of Technology Sydney [2017] NSW CA 280 Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 282 Cripps v G & M Dawson [2006] NSWCA 81 Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133 Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 George v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 76 IMS FX Services Pty Ltd v ASIC (2016) 70 AAR 197 Kanan J.M v Australia Post and Telecommunications Union [1992] FCA 539;43 IR57 Langley v Niland and Anor (1981) 2 NSWLR104 State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Applicant for costs: Ms ABC Respondent to application for costs: Mr GHI
Representation:	Applicant: Ms Gabriel, solicitor, ELG Legal Respondent: Mr GHI self-represented
File Number(s):	2017/290410
Publication restriction:	The Tribunal orders pursuant to section 64(1) (a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 that the names of Mr GHI, Ms ABC and DEF not be published in any reporting of the matter – other than to the parties themselves.