Shandil v Animal Welfare League NSW [2013] NSWADT 15

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Shandil v Animal Welfare League NSW [2013] NSWADT 15 Hearing dates: 21 December 2012 (on the papers) Decision date: 24 January 2013 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: Mr Shandil is ordered to pay half the costs of the Animal Welfare League NSW in the sum of $5374.00 Catchwords: COSTS - application withdrawn - merits of application - pre-litigation costs Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Cases Cited: AT v Commissioner of Police, NSW [2010] NSWCA 131 Rae v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 30 B & L Linings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 5) [2010] NSWADTAP 21 Raethel v Director-General, Department of Education and Training [2000] NSWADT 56 Bevnol Constructions & Developments Pty Ltd v De Simone (Domestic Building) [2009] VCAT 546 Haddad v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 215 Category: Costs Parties: Arun Shandil Animal Welfare League NSW Representation: Counsel A Douglas-Baker (Respondent) A Shandil (Applicant in person) Gadens Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 121117

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) declined Mr Shandil's complaint of disability discrimination against his former employer, the Animal Welfare League of NSW. The reason for declining the complaint was that Mr Shandil had signed Terms of Settlement in which he agreed to withdraw his complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and discontinue his application to Fair Work Australia after receiving a monetary settlement. Mr Shandil did not withdraw his complaint and insisted that the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board refer it to the Tribunal. The day before the hearing to determine whether leave should be granted for the complaint to go ahead, Mr Shandil withdrew his application. The Animal Welfare League seeks its costs. 2Despite the general rule that each party pays their own costs, it is it is fair to order Mr Shandil to pay half of the Respondent's costs. That is because despite knowing that he was legally obliged to withdraw his complaint to the ADB, Mr Shandil did not do so. He vexatiously continued to prosecute his complaint withdrawing it only on the day before the hearing.