D'Cruz v Coutinho (Costs and Final Orders)

[2025] NSWSC 201

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	D’Cruz v Coutinho (Costs and Final Orders) [2025] NSWSC 201
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	13 March 2025
Decision date:	13 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Equity
Before:	Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Decision:	The first, second and fourth defendants are to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on the indemnity basis. The sixth defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiffs.
Catchwords:	COSTS – No issue of principle
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 100
Cases Cited:	D’Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Beryl Clotilda D’Cruz (First Plaintiff) Stanislaus Gregory D’Cruz (Second Plaintiff) Jude Savio Pio Coutinho (First Defendant) Pinnacle Property Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as Avondale Property Group (Second Defendant) Great Southern Agricultural Holdings Pty Ltd (Third Defendant) QC Property Management Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant) Nigel Christian Savio Sequeira (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: Lionheart Lawyers (Plaintiffs) Sixth Defendant (Self-represented)
File Number(s):	2023/00297771
Publication restriction:	Nil

JUDGMENT

1. On 6 March 2025, I delivered the principal judgment in these proceedings – D’Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150.

2. The first, second and fourth defendants did not appear and their defences were struck out. The sixth defendant (Sequeira) did appear.

3. The Court then heard the matter on its merits and the plaintiffs succeeded against the first, second, fourth and sixth defendants, obtaining judgment against them for $854,010, together with pre-judgment interest to 1 January 2025 of $194,237, making a total of $1,048,247.

4. I provisionally ordered that those defendants pay the plaintiffs’ costs on the footing that the order would solidify unless the other parties and my Associate were notified that some other order was sought, in which event the order would not take effect and I would make directions for the determination of costs.

5. By email dated 7 March 2025, the plaintiffs seek indemnity costs against those defendants, arguing that they conducted themselves unreasonably throughout the proceedings, including by failing to comply with the Court’s orders and directions during the course of the proceedings.

6. I directed, and notified the defendants by email accordingly, that any defendant wishing to respond to the plaintiffs’ submissions should do so in writing by no later than 4pm on Wednesday, 12 March 2025.

7. No written submissions were received from any defendant.

8. This is plainly a case where indemnity costs against those defendants who did not appear are warranted. They have put the plaintiffs to needless expense in a case where the merits are all one way and did not bother to appear.

9. I consider that the position of Sequeira is different; he did appear, and, although he was in default of compliance with directions, he did raise the conduit defence. Whilst it lacked merit, this was not to the extent that an order for indemnity costs against him is warranted.

10. In all the circumstances, I have concluded that the first, second and fourth defendants should pay the costs of the plaintiffs on the indemnity basis, and the sixth defendant should pay the costs of the plaintiffs on the ordinary basis.

11. The final orders of the Court are:

1. the defences of the first, second and fourth defendants are struck out;

2. judgment for the plaintiffs against each of the first, second, fourth and sixth defendants for $854,010, together with pre-judgment interest, pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), read with Practice Note SC Gen 16, in the sum of $194,237;

3. the proceedings against the third defendant are dismissed with no order as to costs;

4. the first, second and fourth defendants are to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis; and

5. the sixth defendant is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings.

**********