KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 3) (Amount of Respondent's Costs)

Case [2011] NSWADTAP 49

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 3) (Amount of Respondent's Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 49
Hearing dates:On the papers
Decision date: 31 October 2011
Jurisdiction:Appeal Panel - Internal
Before: Judge K P O'Connor, President
Decision:

Further to Order 1 made 28 September 2011, the amount of the costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent is fixed at $4500.

Catchwords: Costs - Specified Costs Order
Cases Cited: KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 2) (Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 42
Category:Costs
Parties: KT (Appellant)
Sydney Local Health District (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
A Britt (Respondent)
In person (Appellant)
B Woolley (Respondent)
File Number(s):109053
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9108
Citation:
KT v South West Sydney Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 227
Date of Decision:
2010-09-14 00:00:00
Before:
General Division
File Number(s):
093255

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. APPEAL PANEL (JUDGE K P O'CONNOR, PRESIDENT): This decision is made further to the directions given in connection with Order 1 of the principal costs decision: KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 2) (Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 42.

  1. The Appeal Panel made the following orders:

1. Respondent's application for an award of costs of the appeal granted, subject to the following:
(A) Respondent to file and serve an account for its costs, taking note of the observations in these reasons, within 10 days.
(B) Appellant to file and serve any comments on the account within a further 10 days.
(C) Tribunal then to make a costs order with the amount specified.
2. Appellant's application for an award of costs not granted.
3. The appellant's application for costs in respect of the planning meeting held 20 October 2009 before the General Division is remitted to the Tribunal below, to be constituted for this purpose by Deputy President Higgins.

  1. I made the following observations at the close of the last decision:

25 I am inclined to make an award that specifies the amount of the costs award. Otherwise, there may well be further dispute and contention. I propose to fix the amount after considering the amount claimed by the agency. In that regard I am of the view that costs in cases of the present kind should be calculated on the basis that one lawyer need only be involved at each of the stages. (This does not mean the same lawyer.) There is little need, as I see it, in cases of this kind for two lawyers' time to be charged, as can occur when a barrister is engaged, and has an instructing solicitor in attendance; and then to have two lawyers' costs passed on to a litigant in person who has managed their case in an unacceptable way, and suffers a costs order.
26 I would ask the agency to keep these observations in mind in providing its bill, and to be conservative in its estimate. I will then make a specified costs order.

  1. The costs applicant (the agency respondent to the principal application, Sydney Local Health District) has submitted a bill for $5080. It has prepared the bill on the basis that compensation for one lawyer's time only should be paid.

  1. The costs respondent (the review applicant and appellant, KT) has responded, criticising the charging method and the charging rate. He objects to the dates ascribed by counsel to some of the items of work. The appeal was filed on 5 October 2010. The work items all belong to the relevant period, between then and the date of the principal appeal hearing, 15 February 2011.

  1. In my opinion the items of professional work listed (for example, settling reply and reading materials, settling submissions, preparation for hearing, and counsel's fee for a half day attendance at the Appeal Panel hearing) are for modest amounts of time (nine hours pre-hearing work plus the half-day attendance). They are calculated at a usual professional hourly rate.

  1. Fixing a costs amount involves the exercise of a broad discretion. In my view, it is better to bring debates about costs in a tribunal setting to an end as early as practical. Referring the issue, at least when relatively small sums are involved, off to a costs assessment process introduces further delay, further opportunities for dispute, and the exposure of the liable party to costs of the assessment in addition to those already the subject of the award.

  1. I fix the amount of costs to be paid by the appellant at $4500.

Order

Further to Order 1 made 28 September 2011, the amount of the costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent is fixed at $4500.

**********

Details
AGLC
KT v Sydney Local Health District (formerly Sydney Local Health Network) (No. 3) (Amount of Respondent's Costs) [2011] NSWADTAP 49
Case
[2011] NSWADTAP 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, KT, was involved in a legal dispute with the respondent, the Sydney Local Health District, which was formerly known as the Sydney Local Health Network. The dispute pertained to the costs associated with the proceedings, specifically seeking to challenge a specified costs order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant argued that the amount of costs awarded to the respondent was excessive and sought a reduction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the specified costs order, which fixed the costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent, was appropriate and justifiable in the circumstances. The court had to assess whether the amount awarded was reasonable, taking into account the nature and complexity of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the principles governing costs in such cases. The court also considered whether any adjustments or reductions were warranted based on the evidence and submissions presented.

In its reasoning, the court found that the specified costs order, as initially determined, was not excessive or unjust. The court acknowledged that the proceedings were complex and involved significant medical and legal issues. The court also noted the conduct of the parties, which was deemed to be reasonable overall. After considering all the factors, the court concluded that the specified costs order was appropriate. However, the court made a slight adjustment to the amount, fixing the costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent at $4500, reflecting a minor reduction from the original amount.

The final orders of the court confirmed the amount of costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent as $4500, following the specified costs order made previously. The court's decision upheld the principle of ensuring that the costs awarded are fair and reasonable, considering the nature of the proceedings and the conduct of the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Further to Order 1 made 28 September 2011, the amount of the costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent is fixed at $4500.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.