Gay v The Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act [2022] NSWCATAP 42 | Case summary

NCAT Appeal Panel|2022-02-16

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application for costs and other orders made by the appellant in relation to a decision of the Appeal Panel in Gay v The Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act [2021] NSWCATAP 359
The appeal had been lodged by the tenant in relation to a decision of the Tribunal, made on 12 November 2020, terminating a tenancy agreement between the parties. The termination order had been made pursuant to s 94 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW (RTA).
On 15 November 2021, we allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal to be heard and re-determined by a differently constituted Tribunal according to law.
Subsequent to the publication of reasons in the appeal, the appellant sought an order for costs and the Appeal Panel directed the parties to provide submissions. The directions provided a timetable for the filing and serving of submissions, and for submissions to deal with whether or not the party consented to the issue of costs being determined on the papers.
The Appeal Panel received the following submissions from the parties: 1. Appellant's submissions dated 7 January 2022. 2. Respondent submissions dated 14 January 2022. 3. Appellant's submissions in reply dated 21 January 2022.
We have read and considered those submissions. Neither party sought an oral hearing on the issue of costs. We are satisfied that the issue of costs can be adequately determined in the absence of an oral hearing and that the parties would be put to further unnecessary costs if they were to attend a hearing.

Special Circumstances

The tenant has addressed the special circumstances which would warrant the making of a costs order.
"Special circumstances" are circumstances that are out of the ordinary, but not necessarily exceptional or extraordinary. The discretion to award costs must be exercised judicially having regard to the underlying principle that parties to proceedings in the Tribunal are ordinarily to bear their own costs: Mergerditchian v Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 120 at [11]. . Having considered the matters set out in s 60 (3) of the NCAT in respect of whether "special circumstances" exist, we are not satisfied to exercise the discretion to award costs for the following reasons.
The appellant submits that the reasons for decision given by the Appeal Panel demonstrate that the appellant had a strong case The appellant refers to para [27] of the Reasons where the Appeal Panel stated: "We have also considered the merits of the appeal. Weighing up the relevant matters, we are satisfied that the merit of the appeal weighs in favour of granting the extension of time to lodge the appeal because we are satisfied that the tenant was denied procedural fairness which resulted in error on the Tribunal's part."
He also refers to para [71] of the reasons for the decision where the Appeal Panel found that "grounds 4, 6, 7 and 8 have merit."
While the appellant was ultimately successful in the appeal, they were not successful on all the grounds that they had raised and a ground was abandoned. The appellant was unsuccessful on grounds 1, 2, and 5 and abandoned ground 3 on the first day of the hearing. The comments referred to in para [27] of the reasons for decision relate to the exercise of the discretion to grant an extension of time, not on the ground that the appellant had a strong case, rather that together with other factors the appeal had merit which warranted an extension of time.
The appellant submits that the appeal was complex and the outcome had serious consequences for the appellant because it was about terminating a tenancy of about 33 years. While we accept the implication of any termination is serious, we are not of the view that this appeal was particularly complex. In essence the main issues for determination were whether the appellant had been denied procedural fairness and the considerations which are relevant when terminating a tenancy pursuant to s 94 of the RTA.
The appellant submits that the relative financial resources of him and his wife is a relevant special circumstance which would warrant the making of a costs order. The appellant submits that together with his wife, they are elderly pensioners with limited financial resources and multiple health issues and that it would be fair and reasonable for the respondent, a State Government Department, to be ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and it can be assumed that the financial resources of the respondent far exceed the financial resources of the appellant and his wife. He also submits that the potential outcome of the appeal for the appellant and his family, if the appeal had been dismissed, was extremely serious. The appellant and his family would have had to vacate the premises in circumstances where they had not been able to find suitable alternative accommodation (the appellant relies on statements of evidence of Sue Gay dated 5 May 2021 and 28 June 2021).
We are not of the view that the financial circumstances in this case establish special circumstances. There is very little supporting evidence (beyond the statements) in relation to the complete financial circumstances of the tenant or a full disclosure of the steps taken to secure alternative accommodation and what alternative accommodation was sought..
The appellant also submits that the fact that the matter has been remitted for a further hearing will result in further costs being incurred. Our determination in relation to costs relates to the appeal and not what may happen in the future. We are not of the view that this amounts to a special circumstances.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, we find that there are no special circumstances which would warrant the making of costs orders in this matter. The orders are made accordingly.

ORDERS

The Tribunal makes the following orders: 1. An oral hearing on the issue of costs is dispensed with under s 50 (2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). 2. The application for costs and other orders is dismissed. 3. Each party is to bear its own costs of the appeal in accordance with s 60 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

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: 16 February 2022

Gay v The Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (3)