Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Enterprise ICT Pty Ltd v Pham (No 3) [2019] NSWCA 138 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 13 June 2019 Before: Basten JA; Meagher JA; Emmett AJA Decision: (1) Dismiss the first and second respondents’ notice of motion filed on 26 February 2019.
(2) No order as to the costs of the motion.Catchwords: PROCEDURE – judgments and orders – amending, varying and setting aside – application for gross sum costs order and payment from a fund – application made out of time with unexplained delay Cases Cited: Enterprise ICT Pty Ltd v Pham (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 185 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Enterprise ICT Pty Ltd (First Appellant)
Andy Voung Duc Pham (First Respondent)
Robert Sebie (Second Appellant)
Thi Huong Giang Pham (Second Respondent)
Nadine Musabwasoni (Third Respondent)Representation: R Sebie (self-represented and with leave for First Appellant)
Andy Pham Lawyers (First and Second Respondents)
File Number(s): 2017/172378 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity Division
- Citation:
- [2017] NSWSC 583; [2017] NSWSC 446
- Date of Decision:
- 15 May 2017; 26 April 2017
- Before:
- Pembroke J
- File Number(s):
- 2015/325044
Judgment
-
THE COURT: On 15 August 2018 a bench of this Court dismissed an appeal by Enterprise ICT Pty Ltd and Robert Sebie from orders made in the Equity Division. [1] Order (3) required that the appellants pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the appeal, including a notice of motion filed by the appellants dated 24 July 2018, which was relevantly dismissed pursuant to order (1). The first and second respondents were Andy Voung Duc Pham and Thi Huong Giang Pham. The third respondent was the former wife of Mr Sebie, Nadine Musabwasoni.
1. Enterprise ICT Pty Ltd v Pham (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 185 (Basten and Meagher JJA, Emmett AJA).
-
On 26 February 2019 the first and second respondents (the Phams) filed a notice of motion seeking three orders which, in summary, were as follows:
a gross sum costs order with respect to their costs in this Court payable by Robert Sebie;
an order that those costs be paid out of a fund held in the Supreme Court following completion of a contract of sale of land from Robert Sebie to the Phams on 2 May 2018; and
an order that Robert Sebie pay the costs of the motion.
-
Much evidence has been filed in support of the motion, together with written submissions by both parties and by the Phams in reply. It is not necessary to refer to any of this material except to note that the amount of the gross sum costs order sought by the Phams was $33,103 for the proceedings in this Court until the dismissal of the appeal, and $10,442 in respect of the present notice of motion. Both figures were contained in written submissions dated 21 March 2019. There has been further material filed since that date.
-
None of the orders sought should…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Enterprise ICT Pty Ltd v Pham (No 3) 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
- [2019] NSWCA 138
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant an application for a gross sum costs order and payment from a fund, notwithstanding that the application was made significantly out of time and without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The Court considered the principles governing applications for costs orders, particularly where there has been a substantial delay in bringing the application. The Court noted that while it has broad discretion to make orders for costs, this discretion is not unfettered and is guided by considerations of fairness and the need for timely resolution of litigation. The unexplained delay in bringing the application was a significant factor weighing against the respondents. The Court found that the respondents had not provided a sufficient explanation for the delay, and that granting the application would be contrary to the principles of procedural fairness and the efficient administration of justice.
The Court dismissed the first and second respondents’ notice of motion filed on 26 February 2019 and made no order as to the costs of the motion.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Dismiss the first and second respondents’ notice of motion filed on 26 February 2019.
(2) No order as to the costs of the motion.
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.