Yu v Han

Case [2022] NSWCATCD 93


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yu v Han [2022] NSWCATCD 93
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 6 June 2022
Decision date: 06 June 2022
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: P French, General Member
Decision:

1. A hearing on the issue of costs is dispensed with pursuant to section 50(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

2. Fanya Long, Feng Han and Angela Han must pay Xueyan Yu her costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed on an indemnity basis in accordance with the legal costs legislation.

Catchwords:

COSTS – Party/Party – special circumstances justifying an award of costs – indemnity costs – where response to the application had no reasonable prospects of success – where respondent unreasonably delayed the finalisation of the proceedings – where respondent conducted proceedings in a way that disadvantaged the applicant

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation 2019 (NSW)

Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd (No. 2) [2009] NSWCA 12

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1995) 57 FCR 119

Becchara trading as Bechara and Company v Bates [2016] NSWCA 294

CPD Holdings Pty Ltd t/a The Bathroom Exchange v Baguley [2015 NSWCATAP 21

Cripps v G & M Mawson [2006] NSWCA 82

Degnam Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Wright (No 2) [1983] 2 NSWLR 354

Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 989

Huang v Drumm [2017] NSWSC 1006

Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 at 543

Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341and Ng v Chong [2005] NSWSC 385

Megerditchian v Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd NSWCATAP 120

Mendonca v Tonna [2017] NSWCATAP 176

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) CLR 72 at 97

Phillips and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy [2012] AATA 788

Simone Starr-Diamond v Talus Diamond (no.4) [2013] NSWSC 811

Wentworth v Rogers (No.5) (1986) NSWLR 534

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Costs
Parties: Xueyan Yu (Applicant)
Fangya Long, Feng Han and Angela Han (Respondents)
Representation: Solicitors:
KDA Legal (Applicant)
File Number(s): RT 21/45667
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. This is an application by Xueyan Yu (the landlord) for an order from the Tribunal pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NCAT Act) that would require Fangya Long, Feng Han and Angela Han (the tenants) to pay her costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis in the lump sum of $21,176.93 (the costs application).

  2. For the reasons set out following I have determined that there are special circumstances in these proceedings that justify an award of costs in the landlord’s favour on an indemnity basis. However, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient material before me to enable a lump sum costs order to be made. The costs order will therefore require the tenants to pay the landlord’s costs as agreed or assessed on an indemnity basis.

Continue reading Yu v Han

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Yu v Han [2022] NSWCATCD 93
Case
[2022] NSWCATCD 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yu v Han involved Xueyan Yu, the applicant, against Fanya Long, Feng Han, and Angela Han, the respondents. The dispute arose from a matter handled by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Australia. The applicant sought an award of costs against the respondents under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the respondents' conduct warranted an indemnity costs order and whether there were special circumstances justifying such an award.

The court examined whether the respondents' response to the application lacked reasonable prospects of success, if they unreasonably delayed the finalisation of the proceedings, and if their conduct disadvantaged the applicant. The court found that the respondents' response had no reasonable prospects of success as it was not supported by any evidence or legal argument. Additionally, the court noted that the respondents unreasonably delayed the proceedings, which further justified the award of costs. The manner in which the respondents conducted the proceedings also disadvantaged the applicant, contributing to the court's decision.

Consequently, the court dispensed with a hearing on the issue of costs, pursuant to section 50(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. It ordered that Fanya Long, Feng Han, and Angela Han must pay Xueyan Yu her costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed on an indemnity basis in accordance with the relevant legal costs legislation. This decision underscores the importance of conducting proceedings in a manner that is fair and reasonable, with a duty to avoid unnecessary delays and to support submissions with appropriate evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. A hearing on the issue of costs is dispensed with pursuant to section 50(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

2. Fanya Long, Feng Han and Angela Han must pay Xueyan Yu her costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed on an indemnity basis in accordance with the legal costs legislation.

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.