Gaskell v Nazha (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAP 30

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gaskell v Nazha (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAP 30 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 04 February 2022 Decision date: 04 February 2022 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: K Rosser, Principal Member G Ellis SC, Senior Member Decision: 1. Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, dispense with a hearing on the question of costs. 2. Order 1 made on 15 December 2021, namely that "The parties are to pay their own costs of the appeal", is confirmed. Catchwords: APPEAL - Costs - Appeal confined to a challenge to the costs order made at first instance Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 Cases Cited: [2021] NSWCATAP 393 RBV Builders Pty Ltd v Chedra (No 2) Category: Costs Parties: Aaron Gaskell and Serena Bourke (Appellants) Sam Nazha (Respondent) Representation: Antunes Lawyers(Appellant) No appearance (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00251132 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: Not Applicable Date of Decision: 5 August 2021 Before: D Goldstein, Senior Member File Number(s): HB 18/12924

reasons for decision

Introduction 1. The appellant sought and obtained a revision of the costs order made at first instance. On 15 December 2021 the Tribunal indicated its proposed order, namely that "The parties are to pay their own costs of the appeal". However, an opportunity was provided for evidence and submissions to be lodged if a different costs order was sought. 2. Brief submissions have been received for the appellant. No submissions were lodged in reply by the respondent. The issue raised is whether the costs of the appeal are to be determined by reference to the same statutory provision which applied at first instance. 3. For the reasons set out below, we have decided not to vary the costs order on the basis that the appeal did not relate to the amount claimed or in dispute but to the costs order made at first instance.