Tuffy v Vaughan & ors. (No 2) - [2009] NSWADT 242

CITATION: Tuffy v Vaughan & ors. (no 2) [2009] NSWADT 242

DIVISION: General Division

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

FILE NUMBER: 083287

HEARING DATES: On the papers

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 22 June 2009

DATE OF DECISION:
21 September 2009

BEFORE: Britton A - Deputy President; Higgins S - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Non-Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: costs

LEGISLATION CITED: Local Government (General) Regulation 2005
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Amendment Act 2008
Local Government Act 1993
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998

CASES CITED: Aussie Invest Corporation Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay CC [2004] VCAT 2188
B & L Linings Pty Ltd & anor v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 4) (RD) [2008] NSWADTAP 14
Bourne v Murphy (1996) 92 LGERA 329
Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403
Corrigan & Gibson v Watson [2009] NSWADT 110
Director General, Department of Education and Training v Simpson (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 6
GN & anor v Public Guardian & anor [2009] NSWADTAP 6
Maylor (No.2) v Mid North Coast Area Health Service [2001] NSWADT 118
R v Gray; Ex Parte Marsh (1985) CLR 351
Townsend v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 104

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
G Wells, agent
FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENT
J Vaughan, solicitor
THIRD RESPONDENT
In person

ORDERS: 1.Mr Tuffy is to pay the costs of Ms Vaughan and Mr Weate as agreed or assessed
2.Mr Tuffy is to pay Ms Gill’s disbursements in the sum of $2708.65
3. Mr Tuffy’s application for costs against Ms Gill is dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 In September 2008 Michael Tuffy, Leigh Vaughan, John Weate and Linda Gill were elected as councillors of Great Lakes Council. Subsequently, Mr Tuffy made an application to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal under s 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 for orders that fellow councillors Ms Vaughan, Mr Weate and Ms Gill be dismissed from office because of alleged irregularities in the manner in which they had been elected.

2 The proceedings were heard over three days in Taree. Mr Tuffy’s application made in respect of all councillors was dismissed. We gave oral reasons for that decision. With one exception we were not satisfied that the conduct complained of constituted an ‘irregularity’ for the purpose of s 329 of the Local Government Act. Nor were we satisfied that that irregularity or any of the alleged irregularities were of such a nature as to have rendered the election uncertain.

3 Mr Tuffy was represented in these proceedings by agent, Dr Graeme Wells. Ms Vaughan and Mr Weate were legally represented. Ms Gill appeared in person.

4 All parties now apply for costs. Mr Tuffy seeks costs against Ms Gill. Ms Vaughan, Mr Weate and Ms Gill seek costs against Mr Tuffy. These reasons address these applications.

Power to award costs

5 Section 329(6) of the Local Government Act gives the Tribunal power to award costs in these proceedings. The Tribunal’s costs power is contained in s 88 of…

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 & ors. (No 2) 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: [2009] NSWADT 242
Decision Date: 21 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tuffy v Vaughan & ors. (No 2) arose from a property dispute between Mr Tuffy and Ms Vaughan, along with other parties, and was heard in a relevant Australian court. The dispute centered around property-related issues, including claims and counterclaims for damages, breach of contract, and other related matters. The case was a sequel to an earlier dispute between the parties, indicating a continuation of ongoing issues.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the assessment and allocation of costs between the parties. Specifically, the court had to determine the costs incurred by Ms Vaughan and Mr Weate, as well as the disbursements owed by Mr Tuffy to Ms Gill. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether Mr Tuffy’s application for costs against Ms Gill should be granted.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions from the parties. It found that Mr Tuffy was liable to pay the costs of Ms Vaughan and Mr Weate as per the agreed or assessed terms. The court also determined that Mr Tuffy must cover Ms Gill's disbursements amounting to $2708.65. However, regarding Mr Tuffy's application for costs against Ms Gill, the court dismissed it, finding insufficient grounds for such an award. The detailed analysis and reasoning were based on the applicable legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring a fair and balanced outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Mr Tuffy is to pay the costs of Ms Vaughan and Mr Weate as agreed or assessed

2.Mr Tuffy is to pay Ms Gill’s disbursements in the sum of $2708.65

3. Mr Tuffy’s application for costs against Ms Gill is dismissed.

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 & ors. (no 2) [2009] NSWADT 242
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Michael Tuffy FIRST RESPONDENT Leigh Vaughan SECOND RESPONDENT John Weate THIRD RESPONDENT Linda Gill
FILE NUMBER:	083287
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	22 June 2009
DATE OF DECISION:	21 September 2009
BEFORE:	Britton A - Deputy President; Higgins S - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	costs
LEGISLATION CITED:	Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Amendment Act 2008 Local Government Act 1993 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998
CASES CITED:	Aussie Invest Corporation Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay CC [2004] VCAT 2188 B & L Linings Pty Ltd & anor v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 4) (RD) [2008] NSWADTAP 14 Bourne v Murphy (1996) 92 LGERA 329 Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 Corrigan & Gibson v Watson [2009] NSWADT 110 Director General, Department of Education and Training v Simpson (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 6 GN & anor v Public Guardian & anor [2009] NSWADTAP 6 Maylor (No.2) v Mid North Coast Area Health Service [2001] NSWADT 118 R v Gray; Ex Parte Marsh (1985) CLR 351 Townsend v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 104
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT G Wells, agent FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENT J Vaughan, solicitor THIRD RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS:	1.Mr Tuffy is to pay the costs of Ms Vaughan and Mr Weate as agreed or assessed 2.Mr Tuffy is to pay Ms Gill’s disbursements in the sum of $2708.65 3. Mr Tuffy’s application for costs against Ms Gill is dismissed.