Plath v Snowy Monaro Regional Council [2019] NSWCATAP 212

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Plath v Snowy Monaro Regional Council [2019] NSWCATAP 212 Hearing dates: 21 May 2019 Date of orders: 22 August 2019 Decision date: 22 August 2019 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: Armstrong J, President S Westgarth, Deputy President Decision: (1) A hearing on the question of costs is dispensed with; and (2) The respondent's application for a costs order is dismissed. Catchwords: Costs – special circumstances – exercise of discretion Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: None cited Texts Cited: None cited Category: Costs Parties: Graeme Darcy Plath (Appellant) Snowy Monaro Regional Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Appellant (Self Represented) M Herbert (Respondent) File Number(s): AP 19/10413 Publication restriction: Unrestricted Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 30 January 2019 Before: P Boyce, Senior Member File Number(s): GEN 18/36167

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. On 4 July 2019 we dismissed the appellant's appeal. We made directions for the respondent to file and serve any submissions seeking a costs order and a direction for the appellant to file and serve submissions in response. Those submissions have been received and this decision concerns the respondent's application for an order that the appellant pay its costs of the appeal. 2. The appellant was the applicant in the first instance proceedings brought in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal in which the appellant sought to invoke the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) (FT Act) on the basis that the appellant was a consumer and had a consumer claim against the respondent. If the appellant had been successful, he would have been entitled to recover $141.00 from the respondent being the amount charged by the respondent to the appellant (and paid by the appellant). At first instance the Tribunal held that the appellant's claim was not a consumer claim and that therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the appellant's application. We affirmed that decision and dismissed the appeal.