Adam v Hasabo (No 2) - [2020] NSWSC 334

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Adam v Hasabo (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 334
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 01 April 2020
Decision date: 01 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
No variation of the order that the first and second defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
Order, pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), that:
(a)   the first defendant pay interest to the plaintiff up to judgment on 6 September 2019 of AUD 20,187.86;
(b)   the first and second defendants jointly pay interest to the plaintiff up to judgment on 6 December 2019 of AUD 2,743.34; and
(c)   the first defendant pay interest to the plaintiff up to judgment on 6 September 2019 of USD 4,993.31.

Catchwords:
COSTS — Party/Party — Specific court rules in relation to costs — Action could not have been brought in inferior court
COSTS — Party/Party — Interest on costs
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
District Court Act 1973 (NSW)
Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2018 (NSW)
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Adam v Hasabo [2019] NSWSC 1167
Huang v Drumm [2017] NSWCA 29
Mega-top Cargo Pty Ltd v Moneytech Services Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 402
Quistclose Investments Ltd v Rolls Razor Ltd (in liq) [1968] Ch 540
The NTF Group Pty Ltd v PA Putney Finance Australia Pty Ltd (2017) 324 FLR 261; [2017] NSWSC 1194
Category: Costs
Parties: Mohammed Hamed Elsair Adam (plaintiff)
Adam Iesa Ibrahim Hasabo (first defendant)
Lamar A Trading Pty Ltd (second defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Asad Lawyers (plaintiff)
Self-represented (defendants)

File Number(s): 2017/83236
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 6 September 2019, the Court delivered the principal judgment in these proceedings (Adam v Hasabo [2019] NSWSC 1167). This judgment assumes familiarity with the Court’s principal judgment.
The Court concluded that Mr Adam was substantially successful in his claims for various relief against Mr Hasabo and Lamar. At [289] of the judgment, the Court summarised its conclusions as to these grounds for relief. It is worth reproducing the relevant parts of those conclusions here:

(1)   Mr Adam is entitled to a declaration that when the $39,845.88 security for the bank guarantee was paid into Mr Hasabo’s account by Westpac, Mr Hasabo held that money on trust for Mr Adam.
(2)   Mr Adam is entitled to a declaration that he is the beneficial owner of the $17,189.90 that Mr Hasabo paid into Court from the proceeds of sale of the Blacktown Shop, and to a direction that that amount be paid out to Mr Adam, referable to the $15,000 that he paid to Mr Hasabo under the November 2016 deed plus a small amount to compensate him for having been deprived of his money since the date the lessors declined to consent to the transfer of the lease to him.
(3)   Mr Adam is entitled to judgment against Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adam v Hasabo (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Adam v Hasabo (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 334
Case: [2020] NSWSC 334
Decision Date: 01 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Adam v Hasabo, the court was asked to determine the appropriate costs to be awarded between the parties. The action was brought in the Federal Court, which the plaintiff was not entitled to do, as the dispute was of a type that should have been brought in the Federal Circuit Court. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should bear the costs of the action, given that it was incorrectly brought in the Federal Court. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that the defendant should bear the costs as the action was ultimately successful.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant should bear the costs of the action, and if so, whether interest should be awarded on those costs. The court considered the specific court rules regarding costs and the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the action should have been brought in the Federal Circuit Court. The court found that the plaintiff should bear the costs of the action, as it was incorrectly brought in the Federal Court, and that interest should be awarded on those costs from the date of the filing of the action until the date of judgment.

The court's reasoning was based on the specific court rules regarding costs and the circumstances of the case. The court found that the plaintiff had brought the action in the wrong court, which was a significant error that should have been avoided. The court also considered the fact that the plaintiff was ultimately successful in the action, but this did not outweigh the error of bringing the action in the wrong court. The court awarded interest on the costs from the date of the filing of the action until the date of judgment, as provided for in the court rules.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff bear the costs of the action, and that interest be awarded on those costs from the date of the filing of the action until the date of judgment. The court also made an order that the action be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court for further proceedings.

Orders