Zafiropoulos v Director General, NSW Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD 104

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zafiropoulos v Director General, NSW Fair Trading [2015] NSWCATOD 104 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 01 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: NS Isenberg Senior Member Decision: The Applicant pay, within 28 days of this decision, the Respondent's costs of $594.00 in accordance with the findings in paragraphs [46] to [52] of these reasons for decision. Catchwords: COSTS – special circumstances. Legislation Cited: Administrative Review Act 1997 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Home Building Act 1989 Home Building Amendment Bill 2014 Cases Cited: AT v Commissioner of Police 2010 NSWCA 131 Karina Boscola (Applicant);Axciom Australia Pty Limited (Respondent) [2015] NSWCATAD 28 Obieta v Australian College of Professionals Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 38 Category: Costs Parties: James Zafiropoulos (Applicant) Director General, NSW Fair Trading (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: No Appearance (Applicant) S Robosa (Respondent) File Number(s): 1520022

Reasons for decision

Introduction 1. The Applicant applied to the Tribunal (the Application) for a review of a decision by the Respondent to refuse the Applicant's application for an owner-builder permit. The dispute was set down for hearing on 1 June 2015. The Applicant did not appear at the hearing and the Application was dismissed pursuant to s. 55(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the CAT Act) for failure to appear. 2. At the close of the hearing Mrs Robosa indicated that the Respondent would seek an order for costs. I granted leave to the Respondent to apply for costs within 21 days of the hearing and the Respondent did so apply. The Tribunal gave directions in relation to the filing and serving of submissions and details of costs incurred by the Respondent and the filing and serving of any response by the Applicant and directed that, subject to either party objecting, the costs application would be determined on the papers pursuant to s. 50(2) of the CAT Act. 3. The Respondent applied for costs and made written submissions in support of the application (RS). The Tribunal received no communication from the Applicant. Neither party objected to the costs application being determined on the papers. All references below to paragraphs of written submissions by the Respondent are to RS unless stated to the contrary.