Sinclair v Camnet Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAP 154

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sinclair v Camnet Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAP 154 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 11 May 2022 Decision date: 11 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: G Curtin SC, Senior Member D Fairlie, Senior Member Decision: 1. Each party is to pay the party's own costs of the appeal. Catchwords: COSTS — no question of principle Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW), r 38(2)(b) Cases Cited: Allen v TriCare (Hastings) Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 25 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Costs Parties: Kay Sinclair (Appellant) Camnet Finance Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Murray (Respondent)

Solicitors: Appellant (Self-represented) Sarvaas Ciappara Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00248496 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 2 August 2021 Before: K Rickards, General Member File Number(s): GEN 21/18877

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. In our decision Sinclair v Camnet Finance Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 32 (the "principal decision") we dismissed the appellant's appeal from a decision of the Tribunal dismissing her claim that she be relieved from liability under the terms of a guarantee she signed in support of a commercial agreement entered into between the respondent and Sinclair Recruitment (NSW VIC Gold Coast) Pty Ltd ("Sinclair Recruitment"). 2. The respondent has sought its costs of the appeal. 3. These reasons assume familiarity with our reasons in the principal decision. 4. We are satisfied that the costs issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties by considering their written submissions and the other documents lodged with them and accordingly we dispense with an in-person hearing on costs. We note the respondent consented to that course, and the appellant neither consented nor opposed it.