Cambodian Buddhist Society of New South Wales v Meng Eang Thai

[2018] NSWSC 569

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Cambodian Buddhist Society of New South Wales and Anor v Meng Eang Thai and Others [2018] NSWSC 569
Hearing dates:	On the Papers
Decision date:	01 May 2018
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Expedition List
Before:	Sackar J
Decision:	See para [4]
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Cambodian Buddhist Society of NSW (first plaintiff) Long Sakhone (second plaintiff)   Meng Eang Thai (first defendant) Tramouch Neariroth Keo (second defendant) Thearak Boun (third defendant) Phuyi Yort (fourth defendant) Bunchoen Chuan (fifth defendant) Vong Ven (sixth defendant) Ya Hoeung (seventh defendant) Sokchea Kong (eighth defendant) Lim Meng Eang (ninth defendant) Kim Hor Lim (tenth defendant) Huot Chuon (eleventh defendant) Chan Top Kong (twelfth defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: T Crispin (Plaintiffs) Ms Okereke-Fisher (Defendants)   Solicitors: Concorde Legal (Plaintiffs) PW Law (Defendants)
File Number(s):	2017/141644

Judgment – clarification of costs

1. I gave judgment on the question of costs in this matter on the papers. It was published on 26 April 2018.

2. In that judgment at para [11] I ordered that the Defendants should pay 50% of the costs of the Second Plaintiff otherwise each party should pay their own costs. I have been asked to clarify what I intended.

3. By that expression I intended to convey that there should be an order that the Defendants pay 50% of the Second Plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings not just the issue upon which he was entirely successful. As I found the December 2016 election was not only invalid but also plagued by electoral irregularities. The faction which won that election sided with the Eleventh Defendant wrongly to effect the removal of the Second Plaintiff. The action by what I described in my judgment as the “December 2016 team” was a naked device used wrongly to appoint someone of their own faction: (See Judgment [153]-[158] and [169]-[170].

4. In the exercise of my discretion and for the reasons set out in my judgment in particular the matters referred to in [3] above and for removal of doubt the Defendants should pay 50% of the Second Plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

**********

Decision last updated: 01 May 2018