Weraberto Pty Ltd v Vicinity Bankstown Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 155

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Weraberto Pty Ltd v Vicinity Bankstown Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 155 Hearing dates: On the papers; written submissions 20 July 2022 Date of orders: 12 August 2022 Decision date: 12 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: L Wilson, Senior Member Decision: 1. The Tribunal makes an order dispensing with a hearing on costs. 2. The applicant must pay the respondents' costs, on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: Costs – Proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution - Indemnity costs– Other person to pay – Gross sum cost order Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 Cases Cited: Islam v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 116 Category: Costs Parties: Weraberto Pty Ltd (Applicant) Vicinity Bankstown Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Fidante Partners Services Ltd (Second Respondent) Representation: No appearance for the Applicant JKR Lawyers (Respondents) File Number(s): COM 21/49747 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The parties who are applying for costs are the two respondents to the substantive application. The cover sheet of the cost submissions listed the case numbers for both the interim lease application (COM21/49744) and this substantive application (COM21/49747). If the respondents wanted costs of the interim application they could have applied for them from the Senior Member who made final orders on the interim application on 8 December 2021. In any event the interim application was resolved by the parties agreeing to consent orders, including that the respondents would remove the hoarding from the shop so that the lessee could continue trading. 2. It is not appropriate for the respondents to attempt to get a cost order for any costs they incurred in defending the interim application. No orders have been made about making a cost application for the costs associated with the interim application and this decision does not concern the interim application at all.