Citywide Developments Pty Ltd v Dawn Piebenga;; Dawn Piebenga v Citywide Developments Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 76

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Citywide Developments Pty Ltd v Dawn Piebenga;; Dawn Piebenga v Citywide Developments Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 76 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 30 June 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Meadows, Senior Member Decision: 1 In matter number HB 14/41322 each party is to pay their own costs.

2 In matter number HB 14/27779 the respondent is to pay 50% of the applicant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: Administrative Law—legal costs—whether "special circumstances" exist—discretionary decision pursuant to Rule 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Category: Costs Parties: Citywide Developments Pty Ltd (applicant/cross respondent) Dawn Piebenga (respondent/cross applicant) Representation: Solicitors: Peter Merity Solicitor Pty Limited Fontgalland Lawyers File Number(s): HB 14/27779;HB 14/41332 Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for decision

Background 1. Citywide Developments Pty Ltd (the Builder) filed claim number HB 14/27779 seeking, originally, an amount of $82,578.23 plus interest in relation to alleged outstanding payments. Dawn Piebenga (the Owner) filed application HB 14/41322 seeking originally an order that she has a liability to pay an amount of approximately $18,000.00. 2. On 08 April 2015 I published my reserved decision with reasons in relation to both claims. The orders were that in relation to HB 14/27779 the Owner was to pay the Builder the sum of $48,602.44 and HB 14/41322 was dismissed. However, it is important to note that those orders were made in that form for the sake of clarity and convenience: in fact I found in relation to the Owner's claim that she was entitled to the amount of $1,000.00 for rectification of defective works, and the amount of $1,400.00 in liquidated damages pursuant to the contract. To avoid double handling, those sums were set off against the finding that the Owner owed the Builder the sum of $51,002.44. 3. At the end of my written reasons a timetable was made for the parties to provide written submissions in relation to any application for costs. Both parties have provided such submissions in relation to an application by the Builder for its costs in both proceedings.