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…