Dreamtea Pty Ltd v Ochkit Pty Ltd and Anor;; Mistranch Pty Ltd v Ochkit Pty Ltd

The plaintiffs, Dreamtea Pty Ltd and Mistranch Pty Ltd, brought proceedings against the defendants, Ochkit Pty Ltd and another party, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought damages for various breaches of contract and misrepresentations. The first plaintiff, Dreamtea Pty Ltd, sought damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation, while the second and third plaintiffs, Mistranch Pty Ltd, sought damages for breach of contract. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages and sought an order for the plaintiffs to pay their costs.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to costs under the general rule that the losing party pays the winner's costs. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to costs because they had succeeded on their claims. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not succeeded on all or substantially the majority of their claims and that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs.

The court held that it was appropriate to articulate mixed costs in this case. The court found that the plaintiffs had succeeded on their claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation, but had not succeeded on all or substantially the majority of their claims. The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the declaratory relief re caveat component of the claim and 2/12ths of the plaintiffs' nominal and compensatory damages component of the claim. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the loss of use of monies claim component of the claim and the forced sale claim component of the claim. The court further ordered that the second and third plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of defending the second and third plaintiffs' claim, which would not otherwise have been incurred in defending the first plaintiff's claim.

The court made several orders in relation to the costs of the proceedings. The court ordered that the first plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the defendants in the amount of $19,924.79, and that the defendants pay the first plaintiff's costs. The court also ordered that the second and third plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of defending the second and third plaintiffs' claim, which would not otherwise have been incurred in defending the first plaintiff's claim. The court ordered that the costs be assessed on the standard basis on the Supreme Court scale, with certain exceptions.