Tey v Optima Financial Group Pty Ltd

In this case, Tey, the appellant, appealed against an order made by Commissioner Gething in the District Court that she pay the respondent's costs of an application to that court on an indemnity basis. The respondent, Optima Financial Group Pty Ltd, has applied for the appeal to be dismissed, in substance, on the ground that none of the grounds of appeal have any reasonable prospect of success. The litigation between the parties had a long history, with the respondent obtaining judgment against the appellant in the Magistrates Court, which was subsequently upheld by the District Court. The appellant then filed a chamber summons in the District Court seeking leave to appeal against the costs order made by the District Court. The respondent's solicitors invited the appellant to consent to orders dismissing the application for leave to appeal, with no order as to costs. The appellant did not respond in time, and the respondent's solicitors reiterated that costs would be sought on an indemnity basis if the appellant did not consent to the dismissal of the application.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the appeal had any reasonable prospect of success and whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the appellant, who was a litigant in person. The court had to consider the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the appellant in determining whether indemnity costs were appropriate. The court also had to consider whether the appeal had any reasonable prospect of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed.

The court found that none of the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of success and that the appellant's conduct warranted the imposition of indemnity costs. The court noted that the appellant had delayed in responding to the respondent's proposal to dismiss the application for leave to appeal and had ultimately withdrawn her challenge to the costs order. The court also noted that the appellant had previously appealed against the orders made by the District Court and had applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, both of which were dismissed. The court found that the appellant's appeal was misconceived and that she had acted unreasonably in pursuing it. The court also found that the appellant's conduct warranted the imposition of indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis. The court also noted that the appellant's conduct had been vexatious and oppressive and that it was in the interests of justice to impose indemnity costs. The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis, with the amount to be assessed if not agreed.