KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 2)

In the case of KT v Sydney Local Health District, the appellant, KT, contested a decision made by the respondent, Sydney Local Health District, which was previously known as Sydney Local Health Network. The dispute was heard in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) and subsequently appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The central issue was the allocation of costs incurred during the appeal process. KT, who acted as a litigant in person, sought an award of costs against the respondent, while the respondent applied for an award of costs against KT.

The court had to determine whether KT's conduct during the appeal warranted an award of costs against the respondent. It also had to consider the respondent's application for costs and whether the respondent should be awarded costs in light of KT's conduct. The court assessed KT's conduct based on the scatter-gun approach taken in presenting the grounds of appeal and the lack of reasonable basis for many of the arguments raised. The court further considered whether the respondent's costs should be protected, given that they had already borne costs at first instance and the appeal was deemed weak or hopeless.

The court ruled that KT's conduct during the appeal was excessive and lacked focus, leading to unnecessary costs for the respondent. The court acknowledged that litigants in person often face restrictions in legal aid and may conduct their cases in a manner that is more costly for the respondent than if they were represented by a lawyer. Despite this, the court held that KT, having been involved in numerous filings in the Tribunal, should have acquired an understanding of the need for economy and focus in the presentation of arguments. Consequently, the court denied KT's application for an award of costs and granted the respondent's application for an award of costs, subject to the respondent filing an account of their costs within 10 days. KT was given a further 10 days to file any comments on the account before the Tribunal made a final costs order.

In summary, the court awarded costs to the respondent and denied KT's application for costs, considering KT's conduct during the appeal to be excessive and lacking in reasonable basis. The court also remitted KT's application for costs in respect of a planning meeting to the Tribunal below for further consideration.