Tenant’s $3,688 costs claim refused: NCAT will not pay you for your own time

What happened

The parties had a residential tenancy agreement. At the end of the tenancy the landlord made claims in the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT, including a claim on the rental bond, and limited the claim to the Tribunal's $15,000 limit. On 16 January 2026 the Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord a total of $5,146.76 and ordered the full bond to be applied to that money order. The rest of the landlord's claims were, in effect, dismissed.

The landlord filed a notice of appeal on 30 January 2026. An internal appeal is a review of the first decision by NCAT's own Appeal Panel. At a callover (a short listing to get the appeal ready) on 25 February 2026, directions were made and the landlord's application for a stay of the first decision was refused. The appeal was heard on 17 June 2026, when the Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal, refused leave to appeal, and made no order as to costs, giving reasons orally.

The Appeal Panel directed that any party wanting a different costs order file an application within seven days, with a reply seven days after that, and that the parties say whether a costs hearing could be dispensed with. The tenant applied for costs in a written submission dated 23 June 2026, claiming $3,688 in total. Of that, $3,360 was for her own time on the appeal, calculated at $120 per hour, and the rest was for printing, stationery, travel and parking. The landlord filed a submission opposing any costs order, which he said was late because the tenant's submission had been served late. Both parties were self-represented.

What each side wanted

The tenant argued there were "special circumstances" justifying a costs order: that the landlord had not identified an appealable question of law, had tried to revive issues already resolved, had run an appeal with no prospects of success, had repeatedly failed to comply with directions, had made submissions that were frivolous, vexatious and misconceived, and had prolonged the proceedings. The landlord argued there were no special circumstances and the usual rule that each party pays its own costs should apply; that a self-represented party cannot recover the value of their own preparation time and no timesheets had been provided; that the other expenses were not supported by receipts or tax invoices; and that there were inconsistencies in the expense claims.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Panel dispensed with a hearing on costs under section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), deciding the question on the written submissions.

It dismissed the tenant's application for costs, so order 4 dated 17 June 2026 remains in force. The practical effect is that the earlier position stands: there is no order as to costs for the appeal, and each side carries its own costs. The tenant recovered none of the $3,688 she claimed.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Section 60(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act says each party to NCAT proceedings pays its own costs. Section 60(2) says the Tribunal may award costs only if there are "special circumstances" warranting it, and section 60(3) lists the matters the Tribunal may consider, including whether a party unnecessarily disadvantaged the other side, unreasonably prolonged the case, made a claim with no tenable basis, the nature and complexity of the case, and whether the case was frivolous, vexatious or misconceived. The Appeal Panel noted the purpose of the each-party-pays-its-own-costs rule is to promote access to justice and keep overall costs down, that the onus was on the tenant to prove special circumstances, and that even if special circumstances exist an award of costs is still discretionary.

The Appeal Panel was not satisfied there were special circumstances. It did not accept that the appeal was unarguable: one of the main grounds was that the Tribunal had failed to afford the landlord procedural fairness, and without a transcript of the first hearing the Panel would not find the ground had no basis. The landlord had asked at the appeal hearing for an adjournment to obtain the transcript and that application was refused, so any non-compliance with directions caused the tenant no prejudice. The tenant had not specified which directions were breached. This was a standard appeal with one callover and one hearing date, and the Panel did not consider the landlord had run it in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the tenant.

For completeness the Panel also dealt with the largest item, the $3,360 claimed for the tenant's own time. That time is not recoverable. The Panel quoted the Consumer and Commercial Division Guideline on Costs, which says a party may claim a lawyer's or professional agent's fees and disbursements (out-of-pocket items such as filing fees, witness expenses and photocopying), and that a self-represented party may claim disbursements, but cannot claim their own travel costs or their own time spent preparing or running the case, or lost earnings. The Panel said this reflects the law, which refuses costs even to a lawyer who acts for themselves, citing Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow. The tenant's remaining claims were not sufficiently documented or otherwise established.

The Panel also explained why the cases the tenant relied on did not help her. Those decisions involved disputes above $30,000, where rules 38 and 38A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 set the costs regime instead of section 60. Those rules could not apply here, because the Tribunal's relevant compensatory jurisdiction in this tenancy matter does not exceed $15,000, under section 187 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 and regulation 40(b) of the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position at NCAT, this decision shows how the costs rule is applied in practice. The starting point is that each side pays its own way, win or lose. Winning, even winning an appeal the other side brought, does not by itself produce a costs order. The party asking for costs has to prove "special circumstances", and the kinds of things often described that way, such as the other side running a weak case or missing directions, are weighed against what actually happened: whether the other side's argument was genuinely arguable, whether any slip caused real prejudice, and whether the case was longer or more complex than a standard one.

It also shows what can and cannot be claimed if you run your own case. The hours you spend reading, writing submissions and attending the hearing are not treated as a cost the other side can be made to pay, and neither is your own travel. The same applies to a lawyer acting for themselves. What a self-represented person may claim is limited to out-of-pocket disbursements, and even then the Tribunal expects receipts, invoices or records. Here, a $3,688 claim produced nothing, partly because most of it was personal time and the balance was not backed by documents.

A further point is that the costs rules differ depending on the amount and the type of case. Decisions about larger disputes under the Tribunal's rules can be a poor guide to a tenancy claim that sits under the $15,000 limit, where section 60 applies instead. In tenancy disputes about bonds and end-of-tenancy money, the step most people take first is to put the figures in writing to the other side, in a bond claim letter or a breach notice, before any application is made to the tribunal.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a NCAT application. More decisions: NCAT cases and house rentals and bonds.

Source: Korashy v Jusu [2026] NSWCATAP 360 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.