Prasad v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 55

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Prasad v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 55 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 18 March 2011 Before: S Frost, Judicial Member Decision: The Tribunal declines to award costs Catchwords: COSTS Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Cases Cited: Prasad v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2010] NSWADT 219; GA v University of Sydney (No. 2) [2010] NSWADTAP 53; Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Category: Costs Parties: Ravi Prasad (First Applicant) Archana Prasad (Second Applicant) Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent) Representation: Coleman Greig (Applicants) Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 096070

REASONS FOR DECISION 1The Applicants were unsuccessful in their application to the Tribunal for review of land tax assessments in relation to a property they own in Epping: see Prasad v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2010] NSWADT 219 (the Decision). 2In written submissions filed with the Tribunal prior to the hearing, the Commissioner had foreshadowed his intention to apply for costs, pursuant to s 88(1A) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the ADT Act). The application was duly made, and both parties have now made written submissions on that question.

The legislation 3Section 88 of the ADT Act provides as follows: 88Costs (1) Each party to proceedings before the Tribunal is to bear the party's own costs in the proceedings, except as provided by this section. (1A) Subject to the rules of the Tribunal and any other Act or law, the Tribunal may award costs in relation to proceedings before it, but only if it is satisfied that it is fair to do so having regard to the following: (a)whether a party has conducted the proceedings in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged another party to the proceedings by conduct such as: (i)failing to comply with an order or direction of the Tribunal without reasonable excuse, or (ii)failing to comply with this Act, the regulations, the rules of the Tribunal or any relevant provision of the enactment under which the Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings, or (iii)asking for an adjournment as a result of a failure referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii), or (iv)causing an adjournment, or (v)attempting to deceive another party or the Tribunal, or (vi)vexatiously conducting the proceedings, (b)whether a party has been responsible for prolonging unreasonably the time taken to complete the proceedings, (c)the relative strengths of the claims made by each of the parties, including whether a party has made a claim that has no tenable basis in fact or law, (d)the nature and complexity of the proceedings, (e)any other matter that the Tribunal considers relevant. (2) The Tribunal may: (a)determine by whom and to what extent costs are to be paid, and (b)order costs to be assessed on a basis set out in Division 11 of Part 3.2 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 or on any other basis. (3) However, the Tribunal may not award costs in relation to proceedings for an original decision unless the enactment under which the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make the decision provides for the awarding of costs. (4) In this section, costs includes: (a)costs of or incidental to proceedings in the Tribunal, and (b)the costs of or incidental to the proceedings giving rise to the application, as well as the costs of or incidental to the application.