Cooper v Western Area Local Health Network (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 138

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cooper v Western Area Local Health Network (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 138 Hearing dates: 17 and 18 October 2011 Decision date: 19 July 2012 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: J Needham SC, Deputy President N Hiffernan, Non-Judicial Member J McClelland, Non-Judicial Member Decision: The application for costs by the applicant should be dismissed. Catchwords: Application for costs - successful applicant - weighing of factors going to fairness of costs order - application dismissed. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Cases Cited: Cooper v Western Area Local Health Network [2012] NSWADT 39 AT v Commissioner of Police, NSW [2010] NSWCA 131 In Wong v Office of the Board of Studies NSW (No 4) [2012] NSWADT 128 Category: Costs Parties: Catherine Cooper (Applicant) Western NSW Local Health Network (First Respondent) Colin Locke (Second Respondent) Representation: C Cooper (Applicant in person) McIntosh McPhillamy & Co (First Respondent) Campbell Paton & Taylor (Second Respondent) File Number(s): 111032

REASONS FOR DECISION 1J Needham SC, Deputy President; N Hiffernan, Non-Judicial Member; J McClelland, Non-Judicial Member: 2The Tribunal determined this matter on 9 March 2012 (reasons Cooper v Western Area Local Health Network [2012] NSWADT 39) in which a complaint of sexual harassment was substantiated as against the second respondent and dismissed as against the first respondent, the applicant's employer. An order was made that the second respondent pay the sum of $10,000 to the applicant. The parties thereafter made submissions on costs. Those submissions were:- a) Applicant: Letter 9 March 2012 seeking costs against the second respondent; letter 16 March 2012, seeking costs in the sum of $6,000. b) First respondent: letter 11 April 2012 making no application for costs; and further letter 11 April 2012 querying whether the applicant's letter of 16 March 2012 sought costs against the first respondent. c) Second respondent: Letter 7 May 2012 making submissions against an order for costs. 3The Tribunal is of the view that the totality of the correspondence above indicates that the applicant seeks her costs, in the sum of $6,000, against the second respondent and does not seek costs against the first respondent. The first respondent makes no application for costs.