Fatseas v Fatseas bht Basha (No 2)

In Fatseas v Fatseas bht Basha (No 2), the parties were in dispute over a settlement reached by way of a heads of agreement, which was later executed as a deed of settlement. The plaintiff sought to recover costs incurred in relation to the proceedings as well as other expenses incurred during the mediation process. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's costs were recoverable under the terms of the indemnity clause in the settlement agreement, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to an account of costs on a quantum meruit basis.

The court noted that the indemnity clause was clear and unambiguous, and that it covered costs incurred both before and after the execution of the settlement agreement. The court held that the plaintiff's costs were recoverable under the indemnity clause, and that the defendant was liable to pay those costs. The court also noted that the plaintiff was not entitled to an account of costs on a quantum meruit basis, as the indemnity clause was a clear and comprehensive agreement between the parties.

The court's reasoning was based on the terms of the settlement agreement, and the court held that the agreement should be enforced as written. The court noted that the parties had agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement voluntarily, and that there was no evidence of any duress or undue influence. The court held that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed in the settlement agreement.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff's costs in the amount of $184,585.81, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to an account of costs on a quantum meruit basis.