NSW Caselaw
CITATION: Savona v Chapple (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 235
DIVISION: Retail Leases Division
APPLICANT Paul Savona and Suzanna Gizella Savona PARTIES: RESPONDENT Colin George Chapple and Pauline Chapple
FILE NUMBER: 095102
HEARING DATES: On the papers
DATE OF DECISION: 5 October 2010
BEFORE: Rickards K - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: Costs
LEGISLATION CITED : Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Retail Leases Act 1994
CASES CITED: O'Neill–v-Henry (No.2) [2010]NSWADTAP 54
APPLICANT K Pearce, solicitor REPRESENTATION: RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS: 1. The Respondents are to pay 80% of the Applicants' costs as are agreed or assessed
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 In the original decision made in these proceedings on 30 July 2010, orders were made that the Respondents were to pay the sum of $46,696.36 to the Applicants and that there would be no order as to costs unless the Applicants filed and served submissions in support of an application for costs. In the event that such submissions were filed and served, the Respondents were given 21 days in which to file and serve any submissions in response.
2 Very short submissions as to costs were filed and served by the Applicants on 4 August 2010. The Respondents have not provided any submissions in response. 3 The Applicants contend that costs should be awarded in their favour because:- a)The Respondents failed to follow directions of the Tribunal as to filing and service of documentary evidence.
b)The Respondents conducted the hearing in such a way that time and costs were wasted.
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