Ajami v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATOD 208

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ajami v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATOD 208 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 1 May 2018 Decision date: 01 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: P H Molony, Senior Member Decision: 1. The applicant shall pay the respondent's costs of this application fixed at $4,000.00 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - costs – special circumstances – costs thrown away - costs fixed Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Security Industry Act 1997 Cases Cited: Abughazaleh v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force; Sydney Training Academy Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2018] NSWCATAD 30 Ahmed v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATOD 113 AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2015] NSWCATAP 241 Naylor v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATOD 120 Rae v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 3) [2010 NSWADT 254 Category: Costs Parties: Pierre Georges Ajami (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Respondent – Bartier Perry Pty Ltd File Number(s): 2017/00209307 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. On 10 July 2017 the applicant, Pierre Georges Ajami, applied to the Tribunal for administrative review of a decision of the Commissioner of Police to refuse his application for a licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW) (the SIA). Mr Ajami was legally represented in the proceedings. 2. That application was ultimately dismissed on 26 February 2018, because it has been withdrawn, under s 55(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the CAT Act), when the Tribunal made the following orders: 1 Application dismissed pursuant to s. 55(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. 2 If the Respondent seeks an order as to costs, any submissions to be filed and served within 14 days. 3 The Applicant is to respond within a further 14 days. 4 The application for costs to be determined on the papers. 5 If the Respondent does not seek an order as to costs it should notify the Applicant and the Tribunal as soon as possible. 1. The Commissioner has since filed the following documents: 1. Outline of the Respondent's Cost Submissions (the costs submissions); 2. Affidavit of James Bernard Mattson dated 9 March 2008 (the Matson affidavit); and, 3. Respondent's Supplementary Note on Cost Submissions (the note). 1. The applicant has not filed any material in reply with respect to the costs issue. 2. The costs decision has been allocated to me to determine on the papers. Under s 50(2) of the CAT Act I am satisfied that the issues for determination in the costs application can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties by considering the written submissions and other material lodged with the Tribunal. I therefore dispense with the requirement for a hearing in this matter.