Costs: Georgiev v SP71186
Georgiev v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 71186 [2021] NSWCATCD 152
In short
Poor presentation of a case in a manner inconsistent with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute can lead to a costs order.
An unrepresented party on notice of its claim’s serious flaws may be subject to an adverse costs order.
Background
The proceedings need only be described as having a “lengthy and convoluted history”. The lot owner applicants’ claim, including an interim application, sought a total of 37 orders. The applicants filed 9 summonses, of which one was reduced in scope and the remaining set aside. Hundreds of pages of evidence and video footage were filed.
The law
Section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Act 2013 provides that each party is to bear its own costs unless the Tribunal is satisfied that there are special circumstances warranting an order for costs.
Decision
The Tribunal awarded costs in favour of the respondent owners corporation upon being satisfied that special circumstances arose due to:
the volume of the orders sought being out of the ordinary, all of which were dismissed;
a large number of the orders sought being misconceived or based on a flawed understanding of the Tribunal’s power and jurisdiction;
a lack of supporting evidence; and
voluminous irrelevant evidence.
The Tribunal had regard to the applicants being unrepresented, but noted that they had the benefit of the respondent’s legal representatives’ submissions that outlined the deficiencies in the application well in advance of the hearing.
It was also considered relevant that the respondent’s representatives were burdened with voluminous and convoluted evidence that made it difficult to understand the claim.
The Tribunal intimated that the applicants were using its procedures as a form for airing their complaints and grievances, without regard to the proper operation of the Tribunal.
After finding the existence of special circumstances, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to make a costs order due to the misconceived application failing in whole, a misunderstanding of the Tribunal’s power and the operation of the governing legislative framework, and lack of evidence in support of the claim.