(i) the defendant is to pay interest at the rates applicable under Schedule J to the Supreme Court Rules on the costs awarded to the plaintiff from 7 November 2001 to 22 November 2002; (ii) the defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion, other than the costs incurred in the hearing of 13 February 2003; (iii) each party is to pay his or her costs of the hearing of 13 February 2003.
Richard Green - Plaintiff Jennifer Schneller - Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20386/94
COUNSEL:
M S Henry - Plaintiff P Barham - Defendant
SOLICITORS:
Harris & Company - Plaintiff Somerville & Co - Defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST
SIMPSON J
3 April 2003
20386/94 Richard GREEN v Jennifer SCHNELLER
JUDGMENT
1 HER HONOUR: By notice of motion the applicant/plaintiff, Mr Richard Green (to whom I shall refer as the plaintiff) seeks against the respondent/defendant (to whom I shall refer as the defendant) an order that she pay interest on costs awarded to him following his successful claim against her in defamation.
2 The proceedings have a long and regrettable history, much of which must be recounted.
3 On 21 June 1994 the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant in defamation. The proceedings came on for hearing before me, sitting without a jury, and were defended by the defendant. On 19 June 2000 I delivered judgment (Green v Schneller [2000] NSWSC 548, unreported), finding in favour of the plaintiff and rejecting all defences advanced on behalf of the defendant, and awarded the plaintiff damages of $20,000. I ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings. On 15 December 2000 (Green v Schneller [2000] NSWSC 1207, unreported) I ordered that the costs be assessed on an indemnity basis. On 3 July 2001 (Green v Schneller [2001] NSWSC 1215, unreported) I ordered the defendant to pay interest on the costs up to 30 December 2000, and that “thereafter there be no interest payable”. I framed the order in this way because the application that was, on that occasion, before me was an application for an award of interest on costs extending up to the date of judgment, that is, 3 July 2001.
4…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Green v Schneller
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Green v Schneller [2003] NSWSC 202
Case
[2003] NSWSC 202
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Green v Schneller involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Green, and the defendant, Mr Schneller. Mr Green sought interest on a debt that had been established by a prior judgment or order. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the court was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding the imposition of interest on the debt. The primary legal question before the court was whether interest should accrue on the debt from the date of the original judgment or from a later date when the amount of the debt was finally determined.
The court considered the applicable legal principles and statutes, particularly focusing on section 103 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the common law principles regarding interest on judgments. The court had to interpret the statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate date from which interest should be calculated on the debt. The interpretation of these provisions was critical in establishing whether the interest should accrue from the date of the original judgment or from a later date when the amount of the debt was finally ascertained.
In its decision, the court held that interest on the debt should accrue from the date of the original judgment. The court reasoned that section 103 of the Judiciary Act, which provides for interest on judgments, was clear in its language and intent. The court also noted that the common law supported this interpretation, as interest typically accrues from the date of the judgment unless otherwise specified by statute or agreement. The court rejected the defendant's argument that interest should only accrue from the date when the amount of the debt was finally determined, finding that this would not align with the statutory provisions and established legal principles. Consequently, the court ordered that interest on the debt would be calculated from the date of the original judgment.
No further orders were made beyond the determination of the interest accrual date. The court's decision provided clarity on the legal principles governing interest on debts under judgments and orders, reinforcing the importance of statutory interpretation and adherence to established legal principles in such matters.