He v Hecker (No 2)

The appeal is brought by the respondent, He, against the decision of Hecker, the appellant, in the Local Court. The dispute revolves around the costs incurred during the appeal process, specifically the gross fixed sum costs order and whether a self-represented litigant can claim compensation for loss of income. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a self-represented litigant, who was successful in their appeal, could claim compensation for their loss of income during the time they spent on the appeal. The court had to determine the applicability of the gross fixed sum costs order and whether it was fair and just to compensate the respondent for the time lost. The court also needed to consider the balance between the costs of litigation and the necessity for self-represented litigants to be fairly compensated.

The court found that the gross fixed sum costs order was not intended to compensate for loss of income but rather to cover the reasonable costs of the appeal. The court acknowledged that the respondent, as a self-represented litigant, had incurred significant personal costs due to the appeal, but held that such compensation was not within the scope of the gross fixed sum costs order. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the costs of litigation and personal financial losses. Ultimately, the court ruled that the respondent was not entitled to compensation for loss of income under the gross fixed sum costs order.

The court's decision was that the respondent was not entitled to claim compensation for loss of income under the gross fixed sum costs order. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Local Court were upheld. The court did not make any orders for costs.