District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Costi Cohen Pty Ltd v Bo [2025] NSWDC 356 Hearing dates: 5 – 7 August 2025 Date of orders: 12 September 2025 Decision date: 12 September 2025 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Habib SC DCJ Decision: (1) The parties are to confer, and provide to my associate within 7 days, draft orders by consent giving effect to these reasons including a calculation of the pre-judgment interest to which Costi Cohen is entitled to pursuant to s.100 of the Civil Procedure Act. If the parties cannot agree on the orders, they are to provide their competing orders within the same 7 days.
(2) Any party who wishes to file submissions on those submissions within 7 days, such submissions to be no more than 5 pages in length.
(3) If a party wishes to address the Court on the question of costs, they are to notify my associate of that fact within 7 days.
(4) If the parties do not agree on orders pursuant to order 1 above, or either party gives notice of a wish to address the court on costs pursuant to order 3 above, the Court will list the matter on either 26 September 2025 or 10 October 2025. If a listing is required, the parties are, within 7 days, to notify my associate identifying which of the two dates is mutually preferred. Otherwise, the Court will make final orders in chambers.
Catchwords: CONTRACTS –construction – uncertainty – unfair terms – misleading and deceptive conduct – unconscionability – Contracts Review Act – conventional estoppel – quantum meruit
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
Married Women’s Property Act 1893 (NSW)
Cases Cited: ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2020) 278 FCR 450
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chrisco Hampers Australia Limited [2015] FCA 1204; (2015) 239 FCR 33
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CLA Trading Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 377; (2016) ATPR 42-517
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Smart Corporation Pty Ltd (2021) FCA 347
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2021] FCA 957
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1
CCP Australia Airships Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd [2004] VSCA 232
Con-Stan Industries ofAustralia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226
Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky [1992] FCA 557; (1992) 39 FCR 31; 110 ALR 608; (1993) ATPR 41-203
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640
Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420
Horton v Jones (1934) SR (NSW) 359
Karpikv Carnival PLC (2023) 415 ALR 491
Kimberley NZI Finance Ltd v Torero Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 400; (1989) ATPR 46-054
Kooee Communications Pty Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 5
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Costi Cohen Pty Ltd v Bo and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWDC 356
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the contract was void for uncertainty, if any terms were unfair or misleading, and if the plaintiff was entitled to a recovery under a quantum meruit. The court also had to consider the application of the Contracts Review Act and the doctrine of conventional estoppel.
The court found that the contract was not void for uncertainty and that no terms were unfair. However, the court found that the defendant had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the work done. The court held that the Contracts Review Act did not apply and that conventional estoppel was not a valid defence. The court ordered the parties to confer and provide draft orders by consent, and if they could not agree, to provide their competing orders. The court also invited submissions on the orders and any party wishing to address the court on costs to notify the court within 7 days.
The court ordered that if the parties did not agree on orders, or if either party wished to address the court on costs, the matter would be listed on either 26 September 2025 or 10 October 2025. The parties were to notify the court within 7 days which date was mutually preferred. If no listing was required, the court would make final orders in chambers.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The parties are to confer, and provide to my associate within 7 days, draft orders by consent giving effect to these reasons including a calculation of the pre-judgment interest to which Costi Cohen is entitled to pursuant to s.100 of the Civil Procedure Act. If the parties cannot agree on the orders, they are to provide their competing orders within the same 7 days.
(2) Any party who wishes to file submissions on those submissions within 7 days, such submissions to be no more than 5 pages in length.
(3) If a party wishes to address the Court on the question of costs, they are to notify my associate of that fact within 7 days.
(4) If the parties do not agree on orders pursuant to order 1 above, or either party gives notice of a wish to address the court on costs pursuant to order 3 above, the Court will list the matter on either 26 September 2025 or 10 October 2025. If a listing is required, the parties are, within 7 days, to notify my associate identifying which of the two dates is mutually preferred. Otherwise, the Court will make final orders in chambers.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.