Trad v Jones (No. 3) (EOD)

[2013] NSWADTAP 13

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Trad v Jones (No. 3) (EOD) [2013] NSWADTAP 13

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Decision date:

18 March 2013

Jurisdiction:

Appeal Panel - Internal

Before:

R Madgwick, Deputy President
R Perrignon, Judicial member
E Hayes, Non-Judicial member

Decision:

1. In each appeal Alan Jones and Harbour Radio Pty Limited pay one half of Mr Trad's costs of the appeal.

2. In default of agreement between the parties as to the quantum of costs, this costs order be registered with the Supreme Court of New South Wales for assessment of the costs by the honourable Court.

Legislation Cited:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

Cases Cited:

Chand v Railcorp of NSW (No.2) [2011] NSWCA 80
MT v AA (no 2) EOD [2010] NSWADTAP 28
Tu v University of Sydney (No 2) [2002] NSWADTAP 25
Murtough v NSW Bar Association [2008] NSWADT 166

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Alan Jones (Appellant/Cross Respondent)

Harbour Radio Pty Limited (Appellant/Cross Respondent)

Keysar Trad (Respondent/Cross Appellant)

Representation:

K Eastman (Counsel for Appellant/Cross Respondent)
K Nomchong (Counsel for Respondent/Cross Appellant)
Baker McKenzie (Solicitors for Appellant/Cross Respondent)
Turner Freeman Lawyers (Sollcitors for Respondent/Cross Appellant)

File Number(s):

109004, 109005

 Decision under appeal 

Citation:

Trad v Jones & anor (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 318

Date of Decision:

2009-12-21 00:00:00

Before:

Equal Opportunity Division

File Number(s):

071036

reasons for decision

1. We are asked by Mr Trad to award him costs both on the cross-appeals and in relation to the proceedings at first instance. Mr Jones and Harbour Radio submit that the parties should be left to bear their own costs of the appeals and that we have neither the power nor warrant to determine the question of the first instance costs.

1. As to the proceedings at first instance, we apprehend that we have no power to order any such costs: Chand v Railcorp of NSW (No.2) [2011] NSWCA 80. In any case we think it inappropriate for us to entertain that dispute. We do not have the feel for those lengthy proceedings that those still members of the Tribunal who heard it would have, and if we were to decide the question, that might unfairly foreclose any possible appeal as to costs that might be better informed by a decision benefiting from the input of those members. See also the Tribunal's Costs Guideline at para 10, which suggests (with respect, for good reason) that the costs at first instance might have been finalised despite the appeals.

1. We turn to the question of the costs of the appeals. The Tribunal's power to make costs orders in complaints referred to it under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is to be found in Section 110 of that Act, which provides:

'The Tribunal may award costs under section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 in respect of proceedings before the Tribunal in relation to a complaint.'

1. Section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 provides:

(1) Each party to proceedings before the Tribunal…