Bechara v Kazzi [2021] NSWCATCD 11

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Bechara v Kazzi [2021] NSWCATCD 11 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 7 May 2021 Decision date: 07 May 2021 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: A Lynch, General Member Decision: 1. A hearing on costs is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. 2. The application for costs is dismissed. Catchwords: COSTS – where special circumstances exist Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) Cases Cited: Megerditchian v Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 120 Category: Costs Parties: Steve Bechara (Applicant) Youssef Elias Kazzi and Odette Kazzi (Respondents) Representation: Brydens Lawyers (Applicant) Future Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): RT20/50201 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. On 17 February 2021, reasons for decision were published in proceedings RT20/50201. The decision is currently the subject of an appeal to the NCAT Appeal Panel. The hearing took place on 15 February 2021. 2. In RT20/50201 orders were made for the landlords, Youssef Elias Kazzi and Odette Kazzi to give possession of the premises to the tenant, Steve Bechara, on or before 22 February 2021. Orders were also made at that time for the landlords and tenant to make written submissions on costs and to address whether special circumstances warrant an order for costs under Section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014 (NSW) (the Act). The parties were also put on notice at that time that it was proposed that a hearing would be dispensed with in accordance with s 50(2) of the Act and the costs application would be determined on the papers. 3. In his application for costs, Mr Bechara's solicitor, Mr Hanna submits that special circumstances exist in that the landlords unreasonably delayed the hearing by failing to make an application under Section 92 of the Residential Tenancy Act 2010 (NSW) as foreshadowed. Further, the landlord's did not concede until the hearing that the termination notice was invalid. Therefore the matter was unreasonably prolonged and without reasonable prospects of success pursuant to s 60(3)(b) of the Act. 4. Further, Mr Hanna submits that special circumstances pursuant to s 60(3)(c) exist in that the argument by the landlords that the Apprehended Personal Violence Order did not allow the tenant to reside at the property was untenable. 5. It was also submitted pursuant to s 60(3)(g) that because the respondent engaged legal representation the tenant was required to obtain his own legal representation.