Hudson Resources Limited v AceA Resources Pte Ltd - [2021] NSWSC 41

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hudson Resources Limited v AceA Resources Pte Ltd [2021] NSWSC 41
Hearing dates: On the papers; submissions 14 December 2020 and 29 January 2021
Date of orders: 03 February 2021
Decision date: 03 February 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Plaintiff to pay defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis

Catchwords:
COSTS – plaintiff’s case failed at every level – whether costs should be on an indemnity basis –whether plaintiff maintained a case that had no reasonable prospects of success

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bookarelli Pty Ltd v Katanga Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 94
Chaina v Alvaro Homes Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 353
Civil Properties Pty Ltd v Miluc Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 195
Evans v Braddock (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 518
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397; [1988] FCA 202
Harrison v Schipp [2001] NSWCA 13
Hobartville Stud Pty Ltd v Union Insurance Co Ltd (1991) 25 NSWLR 358
Hudson Resources Pty Ltd v AceA Resources Pte Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1771
J-Corps Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federated Union of Workers (WA Branch) (No 2) [1993] FCA 70; 46 IR 301
Rickard Constructions Pty Limited v Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 481
The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 257 S

Category: Costs
Parties: Hudson Resources Limited (Plaintiff)
AceA Resources Pte Ltd (First Defendant)
Sze Sin (Bernard) Juay (Second Defendant)
Cheok Huat (Mick) Aw (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M K Condon SC with N M Bender (Plaintiff)
D A Hughes with R Thrift (First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors:
Piper Alderman (Plaintiff)
CCK Lawyers (First and Second Defendants)

File Number(s): 2018/175764

Judgment

I gave judgment in this matter on 9 December 2020. [1] These reasons assume familiarity with that judgment. I will use the same abbreviations.
1. Hudson Resources Pty Ltd v AceA Resources Pte Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1771.
I found that Hudson Resources’ case failed at “every level”[2] in that it had failed to prove that:
2. At [260].

Mr Juay, and thus AceA, had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct;

Hudson Resources was misled by any such conduct;

Hudson Resources suffered loss as a result of any such conduct;

Hudson Resources had signed the Payment Instruction as a result of any mistaken belief that it had been validly issued; and

the payment by Hudson Resources of $1,050,000 to Mr Aw was made under a mistake of fact. [3]
3. I also found that Mr Aw had, in any event, changed his position on the faith of the receipt of the $1,050,000.

I concluded that Hudson Resources’ claim should be dismissed.
I said that I would hear the parties as to costs.
Mr Juay, Mr Aw and AceA seek an order that Hudson Resources pay their costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis on the bases that:

the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hudson Resources Limited v AceA Resources Pte Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWSC 41
Decision Date: 03 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court heard a case between Hudson Resources Limited and AceA Resources Pte Ltd, where Hudson Resources claimed damages for breach of contract, alleging that AceA Resources had failed to fulfill certain contractual obligations. The case was heard at first instance in the Federal Court of Australia, then appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court, and finally brought before the High Court of Australia. Throughout the proceedings, Hudson Resources' case was unsuccessful at every level, culminating in a dismissal by the High Court.

The legal issue before the Court was whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis against Hudson Resources. This was particularly pertinent given that Hudson Resources' case lacked reasonable prospects of success throughout the litigation process. The Court had to consider the circumstances under which such costs orders are appropriate, balancing the need to discourage frivolous litigation with the protection of a party's right to a fair trial.

The Court examined the nature of Hudson Resources' case and its progression through the courts. It found that the case was without merit from the outset, with the plaintiff failing to establish any viable grounds for its claims at any stage. The Court concluded that the plaintiff's case was so devoid of merit that it warranted an indemnity costs order. The reasoning hinged on the principle that parties should not be allowed to pursue litigation without reasonable prospects of success, as it unnecessarily burdens the judicial system and the opposing party. Consequently, the Court ordered that Hudson Resources pay AceA Resources' costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders