Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: NS Admin Pty Ltd v Singh (No. 2) [2019] NSWCATAP 145 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 13 June 2019 Decision date: 13 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: P Durack SC, Senior Member D Robertson, Senior Member Decision: 1. A hearing of questions concerning the costs of the appeal be dispensed with. 2. The appellant is to pay 80% of the respondents' costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: COSTS – costs on appeal - respondents substantially successful – amount in dispute exceeds threshold – costs follow event except for agreed discount Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act Cases Cited: NS Admin Pty Ltd v Singh [2019] NSWCATAP 69 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Costs Parties: NS Admin Pty Ltd (Appellant) Buttam Singh & Suman Lata Singh t/as Deevan Groceries and Indian Takeaway (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: JB Pearson (Appellant) F Berglund (Respondent) Solicitors: Fotis Law Group (Appellant) File Number(s): AP 18/49157 Publication restriction: None Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer & Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 24 August 2018 Before: D Goldstein – Senior Member File Number(s): COM 18/00387 REASONS FOR DECISION 1. Following the respondents' substantial success on the appeal (NS Admin Pty Ltd v Singh [2019] NSWCATAP 69), they have now applied for an order of costs of the appeal in their favour on the basis of the general discretion to award costs under Rule 38 (2) (b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 without the need to establish special circumstances as required by s 60 of Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. 2. Both parties, in their written submissions on appeal, said that they agreed that questions concerning the costs of the appeal could be dealt with on the papers. Directions were then made by the Appeal Panel for this to occur. 3. In the circumstances, we are satisfied pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act that questions of costs should be dealt with on the papers without a further hearing. 4. It is common ground that the general discretion to award costs is enlivened because the amount in dispute exceeded $30,000.00. 5. Initially, the respondents submitted that considering both their substantial success on the appeal and the circumstances of the case, a costs order in their favour would be the fair and appropriate outcome. Alternatively, they submitted that in view of the appellant's success in one small respect a proportionate costs order should be made in favour of the respondent which should strongly favour the respondents. 6. The appellant then lodged submissions in answer to the respondents' application in which it submitted that the respondents should be awarded 80% of their costs on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed. 7. Subsequently, the respondents lodged submissions in which they said that the appellant's submission as to the percentage of costs to be awarded in the respondents' favour was acceptable to the respondents. 8. In the circumstances, we regard the parties as having consented to the making of an order that the respondents be awarded 80% of their costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed. Orders 1. For these reasons, the following orders are made: 1. A hearing of questions concerning the costs of the appeal be dispensed with; 2. The appellant is to pay 80% of the respondents' costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed. ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Registrar I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar 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: 13 June 2019