Crook v Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal of NSW & [No 2] [2004] NSWCA 14 (12 February 2004)

Last Updated: 13 February 2004

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: CROOK v CONSUMER, TRADER & TENANCY TRIBUNAL OF NSW & ANOR [NO 2] [2004] NSWCA 14

FILE NUMBER(S):

40977/03

HEARING DATE(S): 9 December 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 12/02/2004

PARTIES:

David Crook - Appellant/Claimant

Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales - First Respsondent/First Opponent

NSW Department of Housing - Second Respondent/Second Opponent

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P Sheller JA Ipp JA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30003/03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Master Malpass

COUNSEL:

In person - Appellant/Claimant

Submitting appearance - First Respondent/First Opponent

A Jungwirth - Second Respondent/Second Opponent

SOLICITORS:

I V Knight, Crown Solicitor - First Respondent/First Opponent

M Callen - Second Respondent/Second Opponent

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS - litigant in person

LEGISLATION CITED:

Legal Profession Act 1987

Supreme Court Rules

DECISION:

Orders proposed on 18 December 2003 to stand.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40977/03

SC 30003/03

MASON P

SHELLER JA

IPP JA

Monday, 16 February 2004

CROOK v CONSUMER, TRADER AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR [NO 2]

Judgment

1 THE COURT: The Court delivered judgment on this application granting the claimant leave to appeal and allowing the appeal with consequential orders which included an order that the second opponent pay the claimant's costs of the hearing before the Master and of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal to this Court.

2 When the orders of the Court were pronounced, counsel for the second opponent asked the Court to re-visit the costs orders having regard to the decision of the High Court in Cachia v Haynes & Anor [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403. In that case the High Court held that upon taxation of costs awarded in favour of an appellant who had appeared for himself in the proceedings, the costs to be taxed on a party and party basis (see now Pt 52A r32 of the Supreme Court Rules) do not include compensation for the loss of time of a litigant in person. That is not to say that there may not be out of pocket or other expenses which the successful appellant would be entitled to recover on assessment under Pt 11 Div 6 of the Legal Profession Act 1987. Accordingly, the order proposed by the Court is appropriate and should stand.

**********

LAST UPDATED: 13/02/2004