Franklin Yeezy Holdings atf Franklin Yeezy Holdings Trust v Paligaru (No 2)

Case [2022] NSWSC 1165

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Franklin Yeezy Holdings atf Franklin Yeezy Holdings Trust v Paligaru (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1165
Hearing dates: On the papers; submissions received 1, 22 and 25 August 2022
Date of orders: 31 August 2022
Decision date: 31 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:

Respondent to pay first defendant’s costs of its application to set aside judgment

Catchwords:

COSTS – where respondent joined as contradictor to first defendant’s application to set aside judgment – where respondent’s evidence revealed reason why judgment should be set aside – whether respondent should pay first defendant’s costs of the application

Cases Cited:

Franklin Yeezy Holdings atf Franklin Yeezy Holdings Trust v Paligaru [2022] NSWSC 933

Category:Costs
Parties: Franklin Yeezy Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 619 006 272 as trustee for Franklin Yeezy Holdings Trust (Plaintiff)
Ralph Ignatius Paligaru (Applicant/First Defendant)
Amreeta Devi Paligaru (Second Defendant)
National Australia Bank Ltd (Third Defendant)
Reliance Leasing Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)
DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
Mark James Smith (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
A E Maroya (Applicant/First Defendant)
D C Eardley (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Mahony Law (Applicant/First Defendant)
Moscardo Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/216549

JUDGMENT

  1. For the reasons set out in my judgment of 11 July 2022[1] I set aside a judgment entered against the first defendant, Mr Ralph Paligaru, on 11 September 2020.

  2. That was because the evidence adduced by Mr Mark Smith, who purported to be Mr Paligaru’s contradictor, showed that the punitive judgment creditor had no standing to enter judgment against Mr Paligaru. [2]

    2. See my primary judgment at [12]-[14].

  3. Mr Paligaru now seeks an order that Mr Smith pay his costs of the application to set aside the judgment.

  4. I am persuaded that I should make such an order because:

  1. Mr Smith sought to be joined to the proceedings to be contradictor to Mr Paligaru;

  2. he was unsuccessful in resisting Mr Paligaru’s application; and

  3. his lack of success was because of the evidence to which I have referred, which evidence Mr Smith should reasonably have understood was fatal to the position he adopted on the application before me.

  1. I order that Mark James Smith pay the costs of Mr Paligaru’s Notice of Motion of 2 March 2021.

**********

Endnotes

Details
AGLC
Franklin Yeezy Holdings atf Franklin Yeezy Holdings Trust v Paligaru (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1165
Case
[2022] NSWSC 1165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved Franklin Yeezy Holdings, acting through the Franklin Yeezy Holdings Trust, as the plaintiff and Paligaru as the defendant. The plaintiff sought to set aside a default judgment previously entered against it in favour of the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Paligaru, initially sought to enforce the default judgment against the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff applied to set aside the judgment, citing procedural errors that occurred during the initial proceedings. Paligaru, who had an interest in the outcome of the matter, joined the proceedings as a contradictor to the plaintiff's application. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent should bear the costs of the plaintiff's application to set aside the judgment, given that the respondent's evidence played a crucial role in revealing the reason why the judgment should be set aside.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Paligaru, who joined as a contradictor to the plaintiff's application, should be liable for the costs of that application. The court had to consider the role and contribution of Paligaru's evidence in the proceedings and whether it warranted an order for costs against the defendant. The court also needed to balance the interests of the parties, including the plaintiff's need to rectify an error in the initial judgment and the defendant's interest in enforcing the default judgment.

The court examined the evidence provided by Paligaru and its impact on the proceedings. It found that Paligaru's evidence was pivotal in establishing the reason for setting aside the judgment, thereby significantly contributing to the success of the plaintiff's application. The court noted that while Paligaru's primary interest was to enforce the default judgment, the evidence provided by Paligaru directly assisted in rectifying an error in the proceedings. The court concluded that Paligaru's contradictor status and the significant contribution of their evidence to the application warranted an order for costs against Paligaru. The court decided that Paligaru should pay the costs of the plaintiff's application to set aside the judgment.

In conclusion, the court ordered Paligaru to pay the costs of the plaintiff's application to set aside the default judgment. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the role and contribution of contradictor evidence in determining costs in such proceedings. The court's ruling underscored the need to balance the interests of all parties involved and ensure that the procedural integrity of the court process is upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.