NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board v Focal Holdings Pty Ltd (GD) (No 2)

Case [2011] NSWADTAP 34

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board v Focal Holdings Pty Ltd (GD) (No 2) [2011] NSWADTAP 34
Hearing dates:On the papers
Decision date: 27 July 2011
Jurisdiction:Appeal Panel - Internal
Before: D Patten, Deputy President
N Isenberg, Judicial Member
R Fitzgerald, Non-judicial Member
Decision:

Appellant to pay respondent's costs

Catchwords: Appeal lacking in merit - fairness
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Vocational Education and Training Act 2005
Category:Costs
Parties: NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board (Appellant)
Focal Holdings Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
M Cleary (Respondent)
P Cribb (Appellant)
Pryor Tzannes & Wallis (Respondent)
File Number(s):109054
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
Focal Holdings Pty Ltd v NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board [2010] NSWADT 226
Date of Decision:
2010-09-14 00:00:00
Before:
General Division
File Number(s):
103010

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. APPEAL PANEL (D PATTEN (DEPUTY PRESIDENT), N ISENBERG (JUDICIAL MEMBER), R FITZGERALD (NON-JUDICIAL MEMBER)): When dismissing the appeal in this matter, we gave the respondent leave to make submissions in support of an order for costs. It did so on 15 March 2011 and submissions in reply were received from the appellant on 19 May 2011.

  1. In essence the respondent submitted that the appeal in so far as it relied on asserted errors of law was untenable or unmeritorious and that no basis was shown for allowing an appeal on the merits.

  1. Although as the appellant pointed out the Appeal Panel did not use either of the words 'untenable' or 'unmeritorious' to describe the points argued by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the prospects of the appellant succeeding in having its points of law upheld or securing a hearing on the merits were low.

  1. The power to award costs is contained in s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADTA). Although not argued by either party, we are satisfied that costs on an appeal may be awarded withstanding the absence of authority in the Vocational Education and Training Act 2005 (repealed 29 June 2011). In our opinion an appeal is not a proceeding for an original decision within s 88(3) of the ADTA, although the proceedings at first instance arguably were.

  1. The criterion for a costs award is fairness having regard to the matters set out in the section which include the relative strengths of the claims made by each of the parties (s 88(1A)(c)). We think that in this appeal the strength of the respondent's case was much stronger than the case of the appellant. We also think it appropriate to take into account that this was a barely arguable appeal brought by an unsuccessful respondent at first instance.

  1. In our opinion it would be fair to order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs and we order accordingly such costs to be paid as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed.

**********

Details
AGLC
NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board v Focal Holdings Pty Ltd (GD) (No 2) [2011] NSWADTAP 34
Case
[2011] NSWADTAP 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board, appealing a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, against Focal Holdings Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from the Accreditation Board's decision to withdraw accreditation from a vocational education provider operated by Focal. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central issue before the court was whether the appeal by the Accreditation Board was without merit and, if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to award costs to the respondent. The Accreditation Board argued that there were substantial grounds for the appeal, while Focal contended that the appeal lacked merit and should be dismissed with costs.

The court found that the appeal was indeed without merit, as the Accreditation Board had not demonstrated any substantial grounds for questioning the Tribunal's decision. The court noted that the Accreditation Board's arguments were largely rehashed points that had already been considered and rejected by the Tribunal. Given the absence of any new evidence or arguments, the court exercised its discretion under section 44(3) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to award costs to the respondent. The court held that the appeal was frivolous and an abuse of the court's process.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the appellant, the Accreditation Board, pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that appeals are not pursued without merit, particularly in cases involving administrative decisions, to avoid unnecessary costs and delays.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appellant to pay respondent's costs

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.