Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Saveka-Henaway v Chargrill Star Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAD 289 Hearing dates: 19, 20 June 2018 Date of orders: 13 December 2018 Decision date: 13 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member
Dr M Murray, MemberDecision: Application for costs is dismissed
Catchwords: COSTS – complaint misconceived and lacking in substance – guiding principle – no special circumstances Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014Cases Cited: AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2015] NSWCATAP 241
BHR and BHS v Biripi Aborignial (sic) Children's Services (No2) [2015] NSWCATAD 109
Ceepee Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWCATAD 130
Chan v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATAD 62
Colgate Palmolive v Cusson (1993) 46 FCR 225 CRIPPS and Another v G& M DAWSON Pty Ltd and Another; G & M DAWSON Pty Ltd and Another v CRIPPS and Another [2006] NSWCA 81
Fitzpatrick Investments Pty Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2015] NSWCATAD 103
Hadidi v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 84787 [2015] NSWCATAP 74
Hamid v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 93
Karina Boscolo (Applicant); Axciom Australia Pty Limited (Respondent) [2015] NSWCATAD 28 Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd v Spiteri [2015] NSWCATAP 48
Obieta v Australian College of Professionals Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 38
Scott-Brydges v Lismore City Council (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAD 265
Yammatree Pty Ltd (Applicant); North West Local Land Service (Respondent) [2015] NSWCATAD 221
Younan v Commissioner for Fair Trading (No 2) [2016] NSWCATOD 60Category: Costs Parties: Lara Saveka Henaway (Applicant)
Chargrill Star Pty Ltd (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
E Tringali (Respondent)
Jackson and Associates (Applicant)
Lawthentic (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/313848
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
-
On 26 September 2017 the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board referred to the Tribunal a complaint by Ms Lara Saveka Henaway (the Applicant) against Chargrill Star Pty Ltd (the Respondent) pursuant to section 93A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the ADA).
-
On 19 December 2017 the Tribunal granted leave under s 96(1) of the ADA for that part of the Applicant’s complaint alleging sex discrimination in employment to proceed.
-
On 19 and 20 June 2018 the Tribunal conducted a hearing in this matter. Following the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal gave an ex tempore decision and dismissed the Applicant’s complaint on the basis that on the evidence, (including the Applicant’s own evidence), the Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant had not suffered any detriment as a result of any conduct by the Respondent or its employees, and she had not been treated less favourably than any other employee, male or female.
-
The Respondent sought costs of the proceedings, on the basis that the Applicant’s conduct amounted to 'Special Circumstances' under section 60(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2013 (the CAT Act). The Respondent also sought…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Saveka-Henaway v Chargrill Star Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] NSWCATAD 289
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's complaint was misconceived and lacking in substance, and if so, whether special circumstances existed that would warrant an order for costs against the plaintiff. The court had to determine the applicability of the guiding principles concerning costs in cases where complaints are found to be misconceived or lacking in substance. It was necessary for the court to weigh the principles against any potential special circumstances that might affect the outcome.
The court found that the plaintiff's complaint was indeed misconceived and lacking in substance. It examined the evidence presented and concluded that the allegations did not meet the required threshold of plausibility. Furthermore, the court found no special circumstances that would justify an order for costs against the plaintiff. The guiding principle that costs should not be awarded in such cases was deemed applicable. Consequently, the application for costs was dismissed, and the plaintiff was not liable for the defendant's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for costs is dismissed
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.