Hai Quan Global Smash Repairs v Ledabow Pty Ltd (No. 2)

[2004] FCA 1460

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hai Quan Global Smash Repairs v Ledabow Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2004] FCA 1460

HAI QUAN GLOBAL SMASH REPAIRS PTY LTD & ORS v LEDABOW PTY LTD & ANOR

N418 of 2002

MADGWICK J
13 OCTOBER 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N418 of 2002

BETWEEN:

HAI QUAN GLOBAL SMASH REPAIRS PTY LTD
FIRST APPLICANT

HAI QUOC DANG
SECOND APPLICANT

VAN QUAN DANG
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

LEDABOW PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

HARALAMBOS HANDRINOS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 OCTOBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Each party pay his or its own costs in relation to the matter.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N418 of 2002

BETWEEN:

HAI QUAN GLOBAL SMASH REPAIRS PTY LTD
FIRST APPLICANT

HAI QUOC DANG
SECOND APPLICANT

VAN QUAN DANG
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

LEDABOW PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

HARALAMBOS HANDRINOS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	13 OCTOBER 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

1. In this matter there was an offer made to the applicants to settle the case in July last year in the sum of $50,000 inclusive of costs.  As counsel for the respondents submits, that was a realistic offer that in the event was almost uncannily precisely correct.

2. The verdict and judgment ultimately obtained by the applicants is, however, small and I agree that the respondents should get some benefit from their salutary and sensible approach to settlement, but that the applicants should not receive less than the very small amount for which they have succeeded anyway.  In the face of a contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1994 (Cth) by the respondents, I agree with counsel for the respondents that the appropriate course is to order that each party pay his or its own costs in relation to the matter.

3. I must say this case stands as a sad instance of the inadequacies of our legal system to deal with relatively small claims.  On the other hand, it seems that a degree of unwillingness to face tough reality on the part of the applicants is the main factor that has brought about the result.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:       

Dated:            10 November 2004

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr J Levingston
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Christopher Levingston & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G McNally
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Colin Daley Quinn
Date of Hearing:	13 October 2004
Date of Judgment:	13 October 2004