Steinle-Davies v Inner West Council - [2025] NSWCATAD 108

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Steinle-Davies v Inner West Council [2025] NSWCATAD 108
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 19 May 2025
Decision date: 19 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, I dispense with a hearing of these proceedings.
(2) Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs from 17 October 2024 to 20 December 2024 (inclusive), as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:
COSTS – special circumstances established – out of the ordinary – not exceptional - s 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – party/party costs awarded as agreed or assessed – application arguably weak

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
YKD v YKE (No 2) [2025] NSWCATAP 101
Nominal Defendant v Buck Cooper [2017] NSWCA 280
Brunsprop Pty Ltd v Joanne Hay & Wes Davies [2015] NSWCATAP 152
eMove Pty Ltd v Naomi Dickinson [2015] NSWCATAP 94
CPD Holdings Pty Ltd t/as The Bathroom Exchange v Baguley [2015] NSWCATAP 21
Cripps v G & M Dawson Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 81
Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104

Texts Cited:
None

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Rory Steinle-Davies (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:
Applicant (self-represented)
Counsel:
E Beljic (Inner West Council) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00198401
Publication restriction: Not applicable

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

On 12 March 2024, Rory Steinle-Davies (the applicant) lodged an application (the GIPA request) with Inner West Council (the respondent), seeking the release of information under the Government Information (Public Information) Act 2009 (NSW) (the GIPA Act).
On 17 May 2024, the respondent issued a Notice of Decision pursuant to s 60 of the GIPA Act, by which it decided to provide access to some information (s 58(1)(b) of the GIPA Act) and to refuse access to some information (s 58(1)(d) of the GIPA Act).
The applicant applied to the Tribunal for administrative review of that decision and the matter was heard on 20 December 2024. The Tribunal reserved its decision.
On 4 March 2025, the Tribunal published its decision, which affirmed the decision under review.
The respondent has now applied to the Tribunal for an order that the applicant pay its costs of the proceedings under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the NCAT Act), notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was self-represented.

Hearing dispensed with

The Tribunal invited the parties to make submissions as to whether the need for a hearing could be dispensed with under s 50(2) of the NCAT Act. Both parties consented to a hearing being dispensed with and for the matter to be determined on the papers.
I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before me to enable a proper determination of the current application on the papers and I therefore dispense…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Steinle-Davies v Inner West Council 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWCATAD 108
Decision Date: 19 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Steinle-Davies versus Inner West Council, the dispute revolved around the assessment of costs incurred during proceedings before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The applicant, Steinle-Davies, sought to challenge the imposition of costs by the respondent, Inner West Council, arguing that the circumstances did not warrant such an award. The case was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, where the Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the special circumstances required for a costs order under section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 were present.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the costs incurred by the respondent were justified and warranted under the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the circumstances of the case were out of the ordinary and not exceptional, which are the criteria for a costs order under section 60. The applicant argued that the circumstances did not meet these criteria, thus making the costs order unjust.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that while the application for costs might arguably be weak, it did not reach the threshold of being exceptional or out of the ordinary as required by section 60. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs from 17 October 2024 to 20 December 2024, as agreed or assessed. The Tribunal found that the special circumstances for an exceptional costs order were not established, but the costs should be awarded as per the agreement or assessed.

The Tribunal dispensed with a hearing of these proceedings pursuant to section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The final order required the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs within thirty days of the date of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, I dispense with a hearing of these proceedings.

(2) Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs from 17 October 2024 to 20 December 2024 (inclusive), as agreed or assessed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Steinle-Davies v Inner West Council [2025] NSWCATAD 108
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	19 May 2025
Decision date:	19 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, I dispense with a hearing of these proceedings. (2) Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs from 17 October 2024 to 20 December 2024 (inclusive), as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:	COSTS – special circumstances established – out of the ordinary – not exceptional - s 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – party/party costs awarded as agreed or assessed – application arguably weak
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	YKD v YKE (No 2) [2025] NSWCATAP 101 Nominal Defendant v Buck Cooper [2017] NSWCA 280 Brunsprop Pty Ltd v Joanne Hay & Wes Davies [2015] NSWCATAP 152 eMove Pty Ltd v Naomi Dickinson [2015] NSWCATAP 94 CPD Holdings Pty Ltd t/as The Bathroom Exchange v Baguley [2015] NSWCATAP 21 Cripps v G & M Dawson Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 81 Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Consequential orders
Parties:	Rory Steinle-Davies (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (self-represented) Counsel: E Beljic (Inner West Council) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00198401
Publication restriction:	Not applicable