Reddy v International Cargo Express

[2005] NSWADT 3

CITATION:	Reddy v International Cargo Express [2005] NSWADT 3
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Evelina Reddy RESPONDENT International Cargo Express
FILE NUMBER:	031151
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	10/29/2004
DATE OF DECISION:	01/10/2005
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member; Bolt M - Non Judicial Member; Nemeth de Bikal L - Non Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Costs
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Costs
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Australian Postal Commission v Dao & Anor (No 2) (1986) 6NSWLR 497 at 505) Borg v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services & Anor [2003] NSWADT 35 Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd v Cvetkovski (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 10 Gallagher v NSW Police Service [1998] NSWEOT Graham v Director General, Department of Community Services (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 4 Harding v Vice Chancellor, University of New South Wales (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 36 Maylor (No. 2) v Mid North Coast Area Health Service [2001] NSWADT 118 Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311 Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2002] NSWADT 45 Tu v University of Sydney (No. 2) (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 25 Wilde v University of Sydney (No 2) [2004] NSWADT 16.
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT K Eastman, barrister RESPONDENT P Watts, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. The respondent to pay the applicant's legal costs incurred in respect of the 19 April 2004 directions hearing and the costs thrown away on 3 May 2004; 2. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount of costs within 28 days, costs are to be determined by a costs' assessor in accordance with the Legal Profession Act, 1987.

1 Evelina Reddy the applicant in these proceedings applies for costs under s 114(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (“the A-D Act”). The respondent, International Cargo Express opposes that application.

2 In our decision published on 30 September 2004, Reddy v. International Cargo Express [2004] NSWADT 218, the applicant’s complaint of discrimination on the ground of carer’s responsibilities was upheld and the respondent ordered to pay damages of $ 16,385.

3 This decision is made on the papers. It is to be noted that both parties filed further submissions in addition to those they were invited to file on 30 September 2004. We have not had regard to those later submissions.

Discretionary costs rule

4 Section 114 (1) of the A-D Act provides that each party to an inquiry shall pay his or her own costs. However, s 114(2) grants the Tribunal a discretion to “make such orders as it thinks fit” where it “is of the opinion in a particular case that there are circumstances that justify it doing so”.

5 The principles underlying this provision are well known and have been the subject of detailed consideration by the Equal Opportunity Division of the Tribunal: Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd v Cvetkovski (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 10; Graham v Director General, Department of Community Services (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 4; Tu v University of Sydney (No. 2) (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP…