BHR and BHS v Biripi Aborignial Children's Services (No2) [2015] NSWCATAD 109

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: BHR and BHS v Biripi Aborignial Children's Services (No2) [2015] NSWCATAD 109 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 27 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Higgins, Principal Member Professor P Foreman, General Member Decision: The respondent to pay the applicants' costs, as assessed or agreed, in accordance with the findings set out in paragraph [34] of these reasons for decision. Catchwords: Administrative Review – costs Cases Cited: B & L Linings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 6) (RD) [2012] NSWADTAP 26 The Law Society of New South Wales v Stephen Gary Spring & Anor [2007] NSWSC 1273 Category: Costs Parties: BHR and BHS (Applicants) Biripi Children's Services (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: N Hogan (Respondent)

Solicitors: Baker & Borthwick Action Attorneys (Applicants) Walker Legal & Conveyancing (Respondent) File Number(s): 1410265 Publication restriction: S 65 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – prohibiting the publication of the names or identification of the applicants, and the child the subject of these proceedings.

Reasons for Decision 1. The applicants, BHR and BHS, are authorised carers under Chapter 8 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (the Care Act). In May 2014, the applicants made an application seeking review of a decision of the respondent to remove a four year old Aboriginal boy from their care. The boy had been in the applicants' care since he was eight months of age and he was removed in December 2013. 2. On 25 February 2015, we determined to affirm the decision of the respondent: see BHR and BHS v Biripi Aboriginal Children's Services [2015] NSWCATAD 25 (our decision). 3. As the applicants had made an application for costs at the conclusion of the hearing, in our decision we also made orders for the filing and serving of submissions by the parties in regard to that application. Submissions were filed and we have set out the respective arguments of the parties in more detail below.