Hermann v Commissioner of Police (No 2) [2020] NSWCATAD 205

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hermann v Commissioner of Police (No 2) [2020] NSWCATAD 205 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 18 August 2020 Decision date: 18 August 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Naida Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: The application for costs is dismissed, and each party to the proceedings is to pay its own costs . Catchwords: COSTS – administrative review proceedings – whether special circumstances for an award of costs Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Firearms Act 1996 Cases Cited: Hamid v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 93 Hermann v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 127 Joseph v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31 Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd v Spiteri [2015] NSWCATAP 48 Obieta v Australian College of Professionals Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 38 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Costs Parties: Bradley John Hermann (Applicant) Commissioner of Police (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Lawrence (Applicant)

Solicitors: Twomey Defence Lawyers (Applicant) Lindsaytaylorlawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/00273303 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. The Applicant, Bradley John Hermann was the holder of a Category H Firearms licence (licence) that had been issued for the genuine reason of business or employment, in connection with his employment as an armed security guard. Following an incident on 2 May 2019 when he was performing security guard duties at Moriah College (the School), during which he drew his weapon, his licence was suspended, and then revoked. He sought review of that decision by the Tribunal. 2. On 20 May 2020, I set aside the Commissioner's decision to revoke the Applicant's licence under the Firearms Act 1996 (Firearms Act): Hermann v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 127 (Hermann). I found that although the Applicant breached the terms of his licence, and had acted contrary to various conditions of his employer's licence, I did not consider that such contraventions justified the revocation of the licence. I rejected the Commissioner's contention that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to continue to hold the licence: see s 24(2) of the Firearms Act. 3. As foreshadowed at the hearing, the Applicant seeks his costs in relation to the substantive application before the Tribunal.