Li v Wu

[2013] FCA 1265

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Li v Wu [2013] FCA 1265

Citation:	Li v Wu [2013] FCA 1265
Parties:	YU XIN LI v TAO WU
File number:	ACD 54 of 2011
Judge:	JAGOT J
Date of judgment:	29 November 2013
Catchwords:	COSTS
Cases cited:	Li v Wu [2013] FCA 1067
Date of hearing:	Decided on the papers
Date of last submissions:	19 November 2013
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	16
Counsel for the Applicant:	I Neil SC with M J Heath
Solicitor for the Applicant:			Goodman Law
Counsel for the Respondent:	C Erskine SC with D Shillington
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Johannessen Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 54 of 2011

BETWEEN:	YU XIN LI Applicant
AND:	TAO WU Respondent

JUDGE:	JAGOT J
DATE OF ORDER:	29 NOVEMBER 2013
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The respondent pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or taxed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 54 of 2011

BETWEEN:	YU XIN LI Applicant
AND:	TAO WU Respondent

JUDGE:	JAGOT J
DATE:	29 NOVEMBER 2013
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The remaining issue in this matter is costs.

2. Consequential upon my principal reasons for judgment published on 22 October 2013 (Li v Wu [2013] FCA 1067) and the subsequent orders dated 6 November 2013 giving judgment for the applicant in the sum of $976,866.80 plus interest, the applicant seeks the usual order as to costs.

3. I use the same abbreviations in these reasons as used in my principal reasons for judgment.

4. The respondent contends that the applicant should receive only 20% of its costs on the basis that the applicant succeeded on one issue only and failed on all other issues. As the respondent put it in written submissions:

   The respondent estimates that at least 80% of preparation and court time related to the parts of the applicant’s claim that were unsuccessful. The part of the claim that succeeded involved construction of the text of the 2008 agreement. While some context would have been needed to understand the document, her Honour’s reasons on this issue reflect that the necessary context was largely uncontroversial. The case would have taken a day or two, at the most.

5. I am unable to agree with the respondent’s characterisation of the proceeding or view of the time involved in respect of the issues on which the applicant failed. It seems to me that the respondent’s approach to these matters is almost wholly disconnected from the reality of the issues which were in dispute, the conduct of the hearing, and the context which was essential to resolution of the issues.

6. It is true that the applicant obtained judgment in his favour on one issue (the indemnity provision in the shareholder agreement) and failed in his claims for damages for misleading…