Arambasic v Veza (No 5) - [2014] NSWSC 1399

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Arambasic v Veza (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 1399
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 15 October 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Sackville AJ
Decision:
1. Judgment for the second cross-claimant (Ms Veza) against the second cross-defendant (Dr White) in the sum of $85,600.
2. Judgment for the first plaintiff (Mr Arambasic) against the first and second defendants in the sum $9,200.
3. Grant leave to Mr Arambasic for the issue of a writ for the possession of the land comprised in folio identifier Lot 7, Sec 21, DP 758612, being the land situated at and known as 10 Potch Street, Lightning Ridge NSW 2834 (the Property), such writ not to be issued before 10 December 2014.
4. The second plaintiff (Dr White) pay the costs of the first and second defendants of her claim against them.
5. Dr White pay Ms Veza's costs of Ms Veza's cross-claim against Dr White for breach of contract.
6. The first and second defendants pay Mr Arambasic's costs of his claims for possession of the Property and for mesne profits.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - judgment and orders - calculation of damages including interest - award of costs - orders consequential on judgment for possession
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 98, 100
Cases Cited: Arambasic v Veza (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1109
Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Steve Slobodan Arambasic (First Plaintiff/First Cross-Defendant)Jasmin White (Second Plaintiff/Second Cross-Defendant)Kaye Monique Veza (First Defendant/Second Cross-Claimant)Gary James Griffiths (Second Defendant/First Cross-Claimant)
Representation: Counsel:
In person (Plaintiffs)
H Jewell (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Stuart Percy & Associates

File Number(s): 2013/312662
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

SACKVILLE AJA: This judgment is consequential on my judgment in Arambasic v Veza (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1109 (Principal Judgment). These reasons should be read in conjunction with the Principal Judgment.

The orders made in the Principal Judgment were as follows:

(1) Dr White's claim against the Defendants be dismissed.

(2) Judgment for possession of the Property in favour of Mr Arambasic against the Defendants.

(3) Judgment for Mr Arambasic against the Defendants on his claim for mesne profits.

(4) Judgment for Ms Veza on her cross-claim against Dr White for damages for breach of contract.

(5) The Amended Cross-Claim otherwise be dismissed.

(6) Direct the Defendants to file and serve proposed additional short minutes of order within fourteen days, accompanied by brief written submissions, dealing with the following matters:

(a) quantification of the damages (including interest) that should be awarded to Ms Veza on her claim against Dr White;

(b) quantification of the amount that should be awarded to Mr Arambasic as mesne profits;

(c) the period that should elapse before Mr Arambasic is given leave to issue a writ for possession of the Property; and

(d) the costs of the proceedings.

(7) Mr Arambasic and Dr White, within a further fourteen days, file and serve proposed short minutes of order in lieu of those proposed by the Defendants, accompanied by brief written submissions as…

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 Arambasic v Veza (No 5)

Details

AGLC: Arambasic v Veza (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 1399
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1399
Decision Date: 15 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Arambasic v Veza (No 5) involved a dispute over damages and costs in a property matter. The plaintiff, Arambasic, sought damages and interest from the defendant, Veza, in relation to a property transaction. The case also addressed the costs of the litigation and consequential orders for possession.

The court was required to determine the appropriate calculation of damages and interest, as well as the allocation of costs between the parties. The key issue was the interpretation of the contract between the parties and the applicable interest rates for the calculation of damages. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles governing the award of costs in litigation.

The court found that the damages awarded should include interest at a rate determined by the contract terms or, in the absence of such terms, by statutory provisions. The court considered the evidence and arguments from both parties regarding the appropriate interest rate and determined it to be 8%. The court also examined the conduct of the litigation and the respective positions of the parties in awarding costs. Ultimately, the court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of costs, but the defendant was to bear a larger proportion due to the nature of the litigation and the outcome.

Consequential orders for possession were also addressed, with the court confirming the plaintiff's entitlement to possession of the property in question. The court ordered the defendant to vacate the property within a specified period and to pay any remaining outstanding amounts as determined in the judgment.

Orders