Maiolo v Chiarelli

Solicitors: L.C. Muriniti & Associates (Appellant) G P Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): AP 15/59495 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Citation: John Peter Maiolo v Frank Chiarelli and Anor [2016] NSWCATAP 81 Date of Decision: 11 April 2016 Before: J. Harris SC, Senior MemberD. Goldstein, Senior Member File Number(s): AP 15/59495

Reasons for Decision

1. The principal decision in these proceedings was published on 22 January 2018 being proceedings remitted to the Appeal Panel by the decision of Davies J. in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in John Maiolo t/as M & N Peninsular Kitchens Joinery v Chiarelli [2017] NSWSC 982.
2. We made an order that: 'The decision of the Appeal Panel given on 11 April 2016 and amended on 19 April 2016 is varied to include the following order: 'Frank Chiarelli and Vicki Woodward must pay John Peter Maiolo the sum of $20,900.66 immediately'
3. We also made an order for costs in the appellant's favour, but stated that any application for a reconsideration of that order had to be lodged in the Tribunal and served on the other party within 21 days of the date of our orders either attaching or referring to any documents relied upon in support of the application.
4. The respondents applied for a reconsideration of our costs order serving submissions on 14 February 2018 in support of an order that each party pay its own costs. They also sought to serve a further set of submissions drafted by their solicitor. We refused leave for them to do that stating : 'The decision in these proceedings was published on 22 January 2018. Orders 2 and 3 stated that the respondents were to pay the appellant's costs but an application for a reconsideration of the costs order could be made by filing such an application within 21 days of 22 January 2018, 12 February 2018. On 12 February 2018 the respondent's solicitor wrote to the Tribunal seeking a further 28 days to make such an application in relation to costs as the respondents required additional time to receive advice from counsel. The appellant's solicitors responded on 22 February 2019 objecting to an extension of time for a number of reasons which were set out. They state, among other things, that on 13 February 2018 the respondents served them with submissions regarding costs and that they have drafted submissions in reply. They also point out that the proceedings have been on foot for a very long time and they should be no further delay in finalising them. We have reached the conclusion that because the respondents have filed and served submissions in accordance with order 3 of the 22 January 2018 orders, and the appellant has drafted submissions in reply, the respondents should not be granted the extension of time they seek. To grant an extension of time in those circumstances would in our view unnecessarily increase the costs associated with the costs application by reason of the duplication of submissions. We would also point out that the respondents have had ample time after 22 January 2018 to confer with counsel on the question of costs, but apparently only sought to do so on or about 12 February 2018. In addition, the question of costs is restricted to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and in our view no complex issues are involved such that the additional time sought to confer with counsel should be granted, in circumstances where the respondents have filed and served their costs submissions. Once we have received the appellant's submissions we will determine the outstanding costs issue in accordance with order 5 of the 22 January 2018 orders.'