Crosato v Pro Evolution Sports Pty Limited (Costs)

[2025] NSWSC 340

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Crosato v Pro Evolution Sports Pty Limited (Costs) [2025] NSWSC 340
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	9 April 2025
Decision date:	09 April 2025
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Real Property List
Before:	Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Decision:	The plaintiff/second cross-defendant is to pay the defendants’ and cross-claimant’s costs, and the first cross-defendant’s costs of, and incidental to, the submissions on costs.
Catchwords:	COSTS – Where only issue ultimately litigated by the parties is whether a valuer’s determination was in accordance with the contract – Plaintiff contended it was, defendant contended it was not – Plaintiff failed – No reason why costs should not follow the event – Where valuer was joined to the proceedings and filed a submitting appearance save as to costs – No good reason for the valuer to bear any costs
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.1
Cases Cited:	Crosato v Pro Evolution Sports Pty Limited [2025] NSWSC 261
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Anna Crosato (Plaintiff and Second Cross-Defendant) Pro Evolution Sports Pty Limited ABN 39 607 782 221 (First Defendant and Cross-Claimant) Li Tan (Second Defendant) Paul Waterhouse (First Cross-Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: P Bolster (Plaintiff and Second Cross-Defendant) DP O’Connor (Defendants and Cross-Claimant) P Lonergan (First Cross-Defendant) Solicitors: Paine Ross & Co (Plaintiff and Second Cross-Defendant) Origo Law (Defendants and Cross-Claimant) Kammoun Sukari Lawyers (First Cross-Defendant)
File Number(s):	2023/000438999
Publication restriction:	Nil

JUDGMENT

1. I delivered the principal judgment in this case on 25 March 2025: Crosato v Pro Evolution Sports Pty Limited [2025] NSWSC 261. Definitions in the principal judgment are used here.

2. All that remains to be determined is costs. I have received written submissions from both active parties and the Valuer.

3. Ultimately, the only question in the case was whether the Valuer’s determination was in accordance with the Lease. The plaintiff contended that it was and the defendants that it was not. The defendants prevailed.

4. Three things are clear:

1. the Determination was not in accordance with the Lease;

2. it did not and could never have provided a basis to make the Lessee or guarantor liable for the payment of outgoings when they were not so liable under the Lease; and

3. the plaintiff contended that the Determination was valid and effectively provided a basis for the Lessee to be liable for outgoings, and failed.

5. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event in accordance with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.1.

6. The plaintiff submits that the Valuer should be ordered to pay a portion of the plaintiff’s costs on the footing that his valuation was not upheld but was thus responsible for the position that ultimately pertained. I reject this submission. The Valuer properly filed a submitting appearance. He did not seek to uphold his valuation, it was the plaintiff who did that and at her own costs risk.

7. The plaintiff/second cross-defendant is to pay:

1. the defendants’ and cross-claimant’s costs; and

2. the first cross-defendant’s costs of, and incidental to, the submissions on costs.

**********

Decision last updated: 09 April 2025