Treneski v Football South Coast Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 71

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Treneski v Football South Coast Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 71 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 21 June 2021 Decision date: 16 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: A Nightingale, General Member Decision: 1. A hearing on costs is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. 2. The respondent's application for costs is dismissed. Catchwords: COSTS — Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) 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 Cripps v G & M Mawson [2006] NSWCA 84 Oshlack v Richmond River City Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534 Category: Costs Parties: Daniel Treneski (Applicant) Football South Coast Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: James Sleight (Respondent) File Number(s): GEN 20/44463 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

THE CLAIM 1. This is a claim by the respondent for costs in the substantive proceedings made by an application filed on or about 21 October 2020. 2. The substantive proceedings were dismissed following orders with reasons made on 15 April 2021 on the basis that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the application. The hearing of the matter took place on 9 March 2021. The respondent made an application to the Tribunal for costs on 19 April 2021. 3. Directions were made on 19 April 20221 for the parties to provide documents in relation to the costs application and to include submissions about whether an order should be made dispensing with a hearing of the costs application pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NCAT Act) and allowing the matter to be dealt with on the papers. 4. On 28 April 2021, the respondent sent an email to the Tribunal requesting an extension of time to file written submissions to enable it to engage in negotiations with the application. The Tribunal extended the timetable allowing the parties a further week to provide written submissions. 5. The respondent provided submissions regarding the issue of costs via email and hard copies to the Tribunal and consented to the matter in relation to costs being determined on the papers. 6. The applicant did not file any submissions in relation to costs.