Townsend v Chief Executive, State Rail Authority

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read


CITATION: Townsend -v- Chief Executive, State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 104
DIVISION: Retail Leases
APPLICANT: Jeffrey Townsend & Rhonda Townsend
RESPONDENT: Chief Executive, State Rail Authority
FILE NUMBER: 995009
HEARING DATES: 06/22/1999
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 06/25/1999
DATE OF DECISION:
26 October 1999
BEFORE:


K P O'Connor DCJ - President

PRIMARY LEGISLATION: Retail Leases Act 1994
APPLICATION: Retail tenancy claim -
MATTER FOR DECISION: Application for Costs
REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:
J Chippindall of counsel instructed by Peter Adams & Co Solicitors

Respondent:
A Gelbart of counsel
ORDERS: 1. No order as to costs

1 This decision relates to an application for costs made by the respondent following the dismissal of the applicant’s application for an interim order under the Retail Leases Act 1994 (the Act) restraining the respondent from removing the applicant from premises leased from the respondent: see Townsend v Chief Executive, State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 56.

2 Prior to 1 March 1999, the jurisdiction conferred by the Act was exercised by the Commercial Tribunal. On 1 March 1999 the jurisdiction was transferred to this Tribunal: Retail Leases Amendment Act 1998 (the Amendment Act), s 3 Schedule 1 [47] to [56], partially commenced 1 March 1999 - see Gov Gaz 26 Feb 1999, p 978.

3 The Commercial Tribunal’s power to award costs was conferred by s 32 of the Commercial Tribunal Act 1984 as follows -


    “32 Costs

    The Tribunal may make such award as it thinks fit as to by whom, to whom and to what extent costs are to be paid in, or in relation to, proceedings before it.”


4 It was usual in the Commercial Tribunal to follow the ordinary practice of ordering costs in favour of the successful party. For two examples see Jarre Pty Ltd v Vumbacca (unreported, 8 July 1998) and Berry & Hemingway v Peter Nance Pty Ltd (unreported, 20 February 1998).

5 The Amendment Act inserted a new provision into the Act dealing with costs being s 77A which provides:

“77A Tribunal may award costs

The Tribunal may award costs under section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 in respect of proceedings commenced by an application made under this Part.”

6 Section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the Tribunal Act) is the general provision bearing on this Tribunal’s power to award costs. Section 88 relevantly provides:

“88 Costs

(1) Subject to the rules of the Tribunal and any other Act or law, the Tribunal may award costs in relation to proceedings before it, but only if it satisfied that there are special circumstances warranting an award of costs.

(2) …

(3) However, the Tribunal may not award costs in relation to proceedings for an original decision unless the enactment under which the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make the decision provides for the awarding of costs.

(4) …”

(The jurisdiction exercised by the Retail Leases Division of the Tribunal under the Act involves proceedings for an original decision within the meaning of sub-s (3) above: see s…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Townsend v Chief Executive, State Rail Authority 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
[1999] NSWADT 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Townsend, brought a claim against the Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority, alleging that he was unfairly dismissed. The case was heard by the Industrial Court of New South Wales. Townsend argued that his dismissal from employment was unjust and not in accordance with the statutory provisions governing dismissals. He claimed that he was dismissed without just cause or excuse, contrary to the requirements of the relevant legislation.

The court was required to determine whether the Chief Executive had valid grounds for dismissing Townsend and whether the dismissal was conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions. The key legal issue was whether the Chief Executive's decision to dismiss Townsend was lawful, given the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court needed to assess the evidence regarding the reasons for dismissal, the process followed, and whether the dismissal was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the nature of the employment, the terms of the contract, and the specific circumstances leading to the dismissal. The court found that the Chief Executive had valid grounds for dismissing Townsend, as there was evidence of misconduct and breach of contract. The court also determined that the dismissal process followed the statutory requirements, and the Chief Executive acted in good faith. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the Chief Executive and dismissed Townsend's claim. The court concluded that the dismissal was fair and lawful, and no order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. No order as to costs

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.