You could try to have all costs for future matters allocated to the “serial litigant” on any of the following grounds, 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.
However, I wonder if you might be better in future applying to NCAT that each party represent themselves as, by employing highly paid lawyers, the litigant is putting the OC at a disadvantage.
In fact, parties in a dispute at NCAT are supposed to seek leave to have representation which may be allowed under these conditions. That clearly allows the Member to say “no lawyers” – that might even up the playing field a little.
Or, you might warn the owner that you are sick of their bullying and the next time you will seek to have them declared a “vexatious litigant” under these conditions in the Supreme Court. It’s a long shot but it might give them pause when they consider what such an action – successful or not – might do to their reputation among their peers.