NSW Caselaw
CITATION: Bonzalie v Ersoy (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 132
DIVISION: Retail Leases Division
APPLICANT Eddie Bonzalie PARTIES: RESPONDENT Aslihan Ersoy and Neslihan Ersoy
FILE NUMBER: 095091
HEARING DATES: 20 January 2010
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 3 March 2010
DATE OF DECISION: 1 June 2010
BEFORE: Rickards K - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: Costs
LEGISLATION CITED : Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
CASES CITED: Plant v Meriton Properties Pty Ltd (No.2) [2010] NSWADTAP 20
APPLICANT In person REPRESENTATION: RESPONDENT C Koyuncu,solicitor
ORDERS: The Applicant is to pay 50% of the Respondents' costs as are agreed or assessed upon a party/party basis
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 On 24 March 2010 the principal decision in these proceedings was made. The parties were then given an opportunity to file and serve written submissions as to costs, failing which there was to be no order as to costs.
2 The parties were broadly given a total period of 28 days within which any such submissions were to be filed and served. Only the Respondents have provided submissions.
3 The awarding of costs by the Tribunal is permitted by s.88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1987 ( "ADT Act"), but only if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is fair to do so. Otherwise, the usual principle is that each party is to bear its own costs.
4 There is a non-exhaustive list of factors set out within s.88 of the ADT Act which the Tribunal may take into account in determining whether it is fair to make a costs order in favour of a party.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate