KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 3) (Amount of Respondent's Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 49

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 3) (Amount of Respondent's Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 49 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 31 October 2011 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel - Internal Before: Judge K P O'Connor, President Decision: Further to Order 1 made 28 September 2011, the amount of the costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent is fixed at $4500. Catchwords: Costs - Specified Costs Order Cases Cited: KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 2) (Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 42 Category: Costs Parties: KT (Appellant) Sydney Local Health District (Respondent) Representation: Counsel A Britt (Respondent) In person (Appellant) B Woolley (Respondent) File Number(s): 109053 Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 9108 Citation: KT v South West Sydney Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 227 Date of Decision: 2010-09-14 00:00:00 Before: General Division File Number(s): 093255

REASONS FOR DECISION 1APPEAL PANEL (JUDGE K P O'CONNOR, PRESIDENT): This decision is made further to the directions given in connection with Order 1 of the principal costs decision: KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 2) (Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 42. 2The Appeal Panel made the following orders: 1. Respondent's application for an award of costs of the appeal granted, subject to the following: (A) Respondent to file and serve an account for its costs, taking note of the observations in these reasons, within 10 days. (B) Appellant to file and serve any comments on the account within a further 10 days. (C) Tribunal then to make a costs order with the amount specified. 2. Appellant's application for an award of costs not granted. 3. The appellant's application for costs in respect of the planning meeting held 20 October 2009 before the General Division is remitted to the Tribunal below, to be constituted for this purpose by Deputy President Higgins. 3I made the following observations at the close of the last decision: 25 I am inclined to make an award that specifies the amount of the costs award. Otherwise, there may well be further dispute and contention. I propose to fix the amount after considering the amount claimed by the agency. In that regard I am of the view that costs in cases of the present kind should be calculated on the basis that one lawyer need only be involved at each of the stages. (This does not mean the same lawyer.) There is little need, as I see it, in cases of this kind for two lawyers' time to be charged, as can occur when a barrister is engaged, and has an instructing solicitor in attendance; and then to have two lawyers' costs passed on to a litigant in person who has managed their case in an unacceptable way, and suffers a costs order. 26 I would ask the agency to keep these observations in mind in providing its bill, and to be conservative in its estimate. I will then make a specified costs order. 4The costs applicant (the agency respondent to the principal application, Sydney Local Health District) has submitted a bill for $5080. It has prepared the bill on the basis that compensation for one lawyer's time only should be paid. 5The costs respondent (the review applicant and appellant, KT) has responded, criticising the charging method and the charging rate. He objects to the dates ascribed by counsel to some of the items of work. The appeal was filed on 5 October 2010. The work items all belong to the relevant period, between then and the date of the principal appeal hearing, 15 February 2011. 6In my opinion the items of professional work listed (for example, settling reply and reading materials, settling submissions, preparation for hearing, and counsel's fee for a half day attendance at the Appeal Panel hearing) are for modest amounts of time (nine hours pre-hearing work plus the half-day attendance). They are calculated at a usual professional hourly rate. 7Fixing a costs amount involves the exercise of a broad discretion. In my view, it is better to bring debates about costs in a tribunal setting to an end as early as practical. Referring the issue, at least when relatively small sums are involved, off to a costs assessment process introduces further delay, further opportunities for dispute, and the exposure of the liable party to costs of the assessment in addition to those already the subject of the award. 8I fix the amount of costs to be paid by the appellant at $4500.