Mt v AA (No 2) EOD

[2010] NSWADTAP 38

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION:

MT v AA (No 2) EOD [2010] NSWADTAP 38

PARTIES:

APPELLANT
MT

FIRST RESPONDENT
AA

SECOND RESPONDENT
BB

THIRD RESPONDENT
CC

FILE NUMBER:

099071

HEARING DATES:

21 May 2010

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:

21 May 2010

 
DATE OF DECISION: 

4 June 2010

BEFORE:

Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Rice S - Judicial Member; Bolt M - Non-Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS –relative strengths of the claims – extent of costs

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:

MT v AA [2009] NSWADT 268

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:

081100

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:

06/03/2010

LEGISLATION CITED:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

CASES CITED:

Jonamill Pty Ltd v Alramon Pty Ltd (No 2) (RLD) [2010] NSWADTAP
Corrigan and Gibson v Watson [2009] NSWADT 110
Hawke v WorkCover NSW (No 2) 2008 NSWADTAP 45
Gizah Pty Limited v AXA Trustees Limited (No 2) NSWADT 164
Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors [2010] NSWADT 1 Skiwing Pty Ltd v Trust Company of Australia (Trading as Stockland Property Management [2006] NSWCA 276

REPRESENTATION:

APPELLANT
I Chatterjee, solicitor

RESPONDENT
A Hatzis, counsel

ORDERS:

MT is to pay the respondents’ costs in the sum of $7,398.60 within 28 days of the date of this decision.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1 These proceedings relate to an application for costs by the respondents to an appeal before the Appeal Panel. The costs application has been determined ‘on the papers’, that is on the basis of written submissions: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act), s 76.

2 The background to this application is that MT complained that during his employment as a barman at a hotel in a New South Wales country town during 2007 he was subjected to discrimination on the ground of disability and victimised in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act). The Tribunal dismissed each of his complaints. MT appealed to the Appeal Panel against the Tribunal’s decision. The appeal related to two allegations against the Second Respondent, who was the manager of the hotel. The first allegation was that the Second Respondent dismissed him on the ground that he is HIV positive: AD Act, s 49D(2)(c). The second allegation was a complaint against the Second Respondent of victimisation: AD Act, s 50. MT alleged that one of the reasons for being dismissed was that he wrote a letter on 30 October 2007 complaining about ‘discrimination’ and ‘harassment’. MT ’s appeal was on a question of law: s 113 and s 114 of the ADT Act. The Appeal Panel decided that MT had not identified a question of law or, if he had, the Tribunal did not answer that question erroneously. The appeal was dismissed and the respondents have applied for costs.

Costs provision

Section 88 of the ADT Act provides that:

(1) Each party to proceedings before the Tribunal is to bear the party’s own costs in the proceedings, except as provided by this section.

(1A) Subject to the rules…