Abdelmessiah v Lifestyle Marketing Pty Limited

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. These reasons for decision deal with two applications for costs of the appeal determined by us in Abdelmessiah v Lifestyle Marketing Pty Limited [2023] NSWCATAP 152.
2. The subject of the above decision was Order 4 of the orders made by the Tribunal on 20 January 2023 (we also corrected Order 1 so that it was the second applicant that was removed from the proceedings), which were as follows: 1. The second respondent is removed from the proceedings. 2. By consent, the first and second respondents are to pay the applicant the sum of $1000, representing the return of the holding deposit, immediately. 3. The applicant's claim for damages is dismissed. 4. The applicant is to pay the first and second respondents' costs as assessed or agreed.
3. In that decision, we allowed the appeal in part. The outcome of the appeal was that the appellant still had to pay the respondents' costs, except for the costs of an unsuccessful challenge by the respondents to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine the dispute.
4. Included in the orders we made in determining the appeal were directions for the parties to the appeal to make written submissions concerning any application for costs of the appeal and whether a hearing in respect of any such applications could be dispensed with.
5. Applications for costs of the appeal and supporting submissions have been made by the second respondent and the appellant. No application for costs of the appeal has been made by the first respondent.
6. These costs applications are distinct from separate applications made concerning the costs of the appellant's unsuccessful application in the appeal proceedings for a stay of the Tribunal's orders. This stay application was heard on 1 March 2023 and determined by a differently constituted Appeal Panel. On that occasion, some oral argument was heard by that Appeal Panel concerning applications for costs of the stay application and directions were made by the Appeal Panel for the provision of written submissions about those costs. Subsequently, written submissions were provided. It is appropriate that those costs applications be determined by that differently constituted Appeal Panel, albeit with the benefit of our reasons for decision in these costs' applications.