Tuffy v Vaughan (No. 2) (Costs) (GD) - [2010] NSWADTAP 25

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION: Tuffy v Vaughan (No. 2) (Costs) (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 25

PARTIES:
APPELLANT
Michael Tuffy
FIRST RESPONDENT
Leigh Vaughan
SECOND RESPONDENT
John Weate
THIRD RESPONDENT
Linda Gill

FILE NUMBER: 099060

HEARING DATES: On the papers

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 22 December 2009

DATE OF DECISION:
14 April 2010

BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President)

CATCHWORDS: Costs – Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction – Costs application by respondents granted – Local Government Act 1993, s 329(6) – Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, s 88

DECISION UNDER APPEAL: Tuffy v Vaughan & ors. (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 242

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 083287

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 04/29/2009

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Local Government Act 1993

CASES CITED: La France v Clarence [2004] NSWADT 256
Tuffy v Vaughan & ors (no 2) [2009] NSWADT 242
Tuffy v Vaughan & ors [2009] NSWADT 316
Tuffy v Vaughan (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 75
Wolinski v HIA Insurance [2003] NSWSC 475

REPRESENTATION:
APPELLANT
G Wells, agent
FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS
J Vaughan, solicitor, Bromhead Legal
THIRD RESPONDENT
In person

ORDERS: That the Appellant pay the First and Second Respondents’ costs of the appeal in the amount of $1,650 (being $1,500 plus GST).

1 Mr Tuffy disputed the regularity of the election of Ms Leigh Vaughan, Mr John Weate and Ms Linda Gill as councillors of the Great Lakes Shire Council. He applied to the Tribunal under s 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 for orders for their dismissal from civic office. At the end of the three-day hearing at Taree before a three-member panel of the General Division, the Tribunal dismissed the application. See Tuffy v Vaughan & ors [2009] NSWADT 316.

2 The first and second respondents obtained an award of costs ‘as agreed or assessed’. The third respondent, Ms Gill, had appeared without legal representation. She obtained an order for reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $2,708.65. See Tuffy v Vaughan & ors (no 2) [2009] NSWADT 242.

3 An appeal by Mr Tuffy has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tuffy v Vaughan (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 75 (made ex tempore, 24 November 2009; written reasons published, 22 December 2009.) This decision is supplementary to that decision.

4 At the close of the ex tempore reasons, Mr John Vaughan, solicitor for the first two respondents, Ms Vaughan and Mr Weate, foreshadowed an application for his clients’ costs wasted in respect of the purported appeal. Directions were made.

5 On 7 December 2009, Mr Vaughan filed submissions on behalf of his clients. There has been no application or submissions from Ms Gill. On 17 December 2009 the appellant filed submissions opposing any order. The appellant’s submissions were prepared by the non-lawyer agent who has represented him throughout these proceedings, Dr Graeme Wells.

Legislation

6 Under s 329(6) of the Local Government Act, the Tribunal ‘may award costs under section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 [ADT Act] in respect of proceedings…

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 Tuffy v Vaughan (No. 2) (Costs) (GD) 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: [2010] NSWADTAP 25
Decision Date: 14 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tuffy v Vaughan (No. 2) (Costs), the parties involved were Tuffy as the appellant and Vaughan and another as the respondents. The nature of the dispute was a costs application by the respondents. The case was heard by the General Division of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondents sought an order for the appellant to pay their costs of the appeal. The appellant contested the application, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the court had jurisdiction to order the appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal and, if so, whether such an order was warranted. The respondents relied on sections 329(6) of the Local Government Act 1993 and 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to support their application. The court examined these statutory provisions to determine if they granted the necessary jurisdiction to make an order for costs.

The court found that it did have jurisdiction to order the appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal, based on the statutory provisions cited. The court considered the principle that costs should follow the event and the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings. The court concluded that the appellant’s appeal was without merit and that the respondents’ application for costs was justified. Consequently, the court granted the respondents’ application and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant was to pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the appeal in the amount of $1,650, which included $1,500 plus GST. The court's decision underscored the importance of statutory authority in making orders for costs and the principle that costs should reflect the outcome and conduct of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Appellant pay the First and Second Respondents’ costs of the appeal in the amount of $1,650 (being $1,500 plus GST).

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.

CITATION:	Tuffy v Vaughan (No. 2) (Costs) (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 25
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Michael Tuffy FIRST RESPONDENT Leigh Vaughan SECOND RESPONDENT John Weate THIRD RESPONDENT Linda Gill
FILE NUMBER:	099060
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	22 December 2009
DATE OF DECISION:	14 April 2010
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President)
CATCHWORDS:	Costs – Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction – Costs application by respondents granted – Local Government Act 1993, s 329(6) – Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, s 88
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Tuffy v Vaughan & ors. (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 242
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	083287
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	04/29/2009
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Local Government Act 1993
CASES CITED:	La France v Clarence [2004] NSWADT 256 Tuffy v Vaughan & ors (no 2) [2009] NSWADT 242 Tuffy v Vaughan & ors [2009] NSWADT 316 Tuffy v Vaughan (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 75 Wolinski v HIA Insurance [2003] NSWSC 475
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT G Wells, agent FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS J Vaughan, solicitor, Bromhead Legal THIRD RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS:	That the Appellant pay the First and Second Respondents’ costs of the appeal in the amount of $1,650 (being $1,500 plus GST).