District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Amelia Christopher v Tracey Fowler [2017] NSWDC 71 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 04 April 2017 Decision date: 04 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Judge AC Scotting Decision: The application for costs is refused Catchwords: COSTS – application following successful appeal – confinement of costs – liabilities incurred – money paid – professional legal services – compensation for litigant in person Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestice and Personal Violence) Act 2007 s.99A Cases Cited: Cunningham v Cunningham [2012] NSWSC 849 Category: Costs Parties: Ameilia Christopher (Appellant) Tracey Fowler (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: In person (Appellant) Conaghan Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2014/00223257 Judgment 1. Amelia Christopher (the applicant) seeks an order for costs following her successful appeal against the imposition of an apprehended personal violence order (APVO). 2. The application has been dealt with on the written submissions provided on behalf of both parties. The relevant law 1. Section 99A Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (the Act) provides that costs cannot be awarded against an applicant for an order unless the application was frivolous or vexatious. 2. The words "frivolous or vexatious" are well known to the law and import a high degree of inappropriateness in a cause of action, approaching an abuse of process. A matter is frivolous if it is without substance, groundless or fanciful. A matter is vexatious when it lacks bona fides and is hopeless and tens to cause the opponent unnecessary anxiety, trouble and expense: Cunningham v Cunningham [2012] NSWSC 849 at [63] per Button J. Consideration 1. The applicant has not addressed the need for the respondent's behaviour to be frivolous or vexatious in her submissions. She seeks further time and a further opportunity to put on evidence and submissions on that issue. I do not believe that the interests of justice would be served by granting to her that further opportunity. 2. Having conducted an independent review of the evidence, there is nothing to suggest that the respondent's application for an order was frivolous or vexatious and the applicant cannot satisfy me that the power to award costs has been invoked. 3. Further, the term "professional costs" is defined in the Act. The applicant has not satisfied me on the evidence that she has paid or is liable to any amount that would satisfy that definition in relation to the appeal. 4. The order that I make is the application for costs is refused. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 April 2017