#56549
Jimmy-T
Keymaster

    I have been sent an rude email under the made-up name Simon Boccanegra. Normally I would just flick this to spam, but it’s worth answering because it illustrates how obsessive  people who believe they are in the right can get drawn into the quicksand of legal costs.

    So here is the email.

    The following sounds very hard to believe. $40 thousand costs awarded against someone at NCAT? I sincerely doubt this. I’ll call BS.

    “And costs are awarded under certain circumstances, as has happened to a very distressed reader who wrote to me today saying she’s had legal costs of $40k awarded against her.”

    Clear this up, sunshine. Was this taken to a higher court or something. As you would know NCAT almost NEVER awards costs. It’s supposed to be a civilised egalitarian way to settle disputes, yes?

    As explained in the link I posted earlier, there are certain grounds under which NCAT will award reasonable costs. They are (and this is taken from the NCAT website):

    a) A party has conducted their case in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party
    b) A party has been responsible for unreasonably making the case take longer
    c) The relative strength of a party’s case or whether the case was hopeless
    d) The nature and complexity of the case
    e) A party’s case was frivolous, vexatious or misconceived
    f) A party has not cooperated with the Tribunal in providing a just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute
    g) A party has not followed Tribunal orders or directions
    h) Any other matter the Tribunal thinks is relevant

    Now that covers a  lot of options but you can see how a misinformed, obsessive and vexatious litigant could trip themselves up, especially if they suffer from bush-lawyeritis.

    Now, to be clear, costs awarded by NCAT are not a penalty, per se, nor are they compensation for travel or time taken off work.

    However they do include fees for representation, and costs that unrepresented parties would have to have paid if they had been represented, such as filing fees, expert witnesses and printing costs.

    The limitations on those charges are established in the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014, but all it takes is a few delayed hearings, misconceived challenges and recesses to address previously withheld evidence and the legal bills could mount up for the other side .

    And, of course, delays, misdirections and unsustainable arguments would not only inflate the defence’s legal bills, they would trip over several of the clauses that allow costs to be ordered.

    OK, but $40,000? In the case that was brought to my attention, the costs claimed for defending the Tribunal action was six or seven relatively small amounts (at least by legal standards) that added up over the course of a tricky case.

    So, yes, you could theoretically end up having costs of $40k awarded by NCAT, because NCAT can either get the parties to agree on the costs, apply the terms of the Uniform Terms Application Act, or set a figure itself.

    Simon Boccanegra is an opera by Verdi about a peasant who seeks high office. Spoiler alert:  At the end  he is betrayed and dies of poisoning.  Sad.

     

     

    The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.