Liew & Anor v Barthelmess & Ors (No.2)

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Liew & Anor v Barthelmess & Ors (No.2) [2024] NSWDC 403
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: On the papers
Decision date: 09 September 2024
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph [46]

Catchwords:

COSTS – successful party’s application for indemnity costs – multiple offers of settlement, including offer prior to commencement of proceeding

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 20.26, 36.16(3), 42.14, 42.15A

Cases Cited:

Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333

Commonwealth v Gretton [2008] NSWCA 117

Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341

Liew & Anor v Barthelmess & Ors [2024] NSWDC 344

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Costs
Parties: Ms Liz Yuman Liew (First Plaintiff/First Cross-Defendant)
Ms Lihua Wu (Second Plaintiff/Second Cross-Defendant)
Mr Jonathan Joshua Barthelmess (First Defendant/First Cross-Claimant)
Ms Laurette Ruth Macsween (Second Defendant/Second Cross-Claimant)
Ms Prudence Gai Macsween (Third Defendant/Third Cross-Claimant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms A. Elizabeth (Defendants/Cross-Claimants)

Solicitors:
MJF Law (Defendants/Cross-Claimants)
JC Legal (First and Second Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants)
File Number(s): 2023/00107792
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. I delivered reasons for judgment in this proceeding on 13 August 2024[1] . The case featured an attempt by the purchasers of a luxury property at Darling Point to recover the monies they paid upon entry into three, interconnected contracts in November 2021. For their part, the vendors (as cross-claimants) sought to retain the monies ($400,000) paid to their agent and also sought an order for the balance of monies payable ($340,000) on the deposits. The contracts were terminated in March 2022. The purchasers commenced the proceeding on 3 April 2023. The Vendors filed their (original iteration of their) cross-claim on 10 May 2023.

    1. Liew & Anor v Barthelmess & Ors [2024] NSWDC 344

  2. I found in the vendors’ favour and ordered the purchasers to pay the vendors the sum of $340,000, with interest.

  3. On the issue of costs, at paragraph [183] of the judgment, I stated that although a claim for indemnity costs was identified in the cross-claim, the vendors had not, through their Counsel’s written or oral submissions, asked to be heard in support of any special costs order and ordered [2] that the purchasers pay the vendors’ costs on the ordinary basis.

    2. Order 5

  4. By a notice of motion dated 26 August 2024, the vendors applied, pursuant to r 36.16(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (‘UCPR’) for a variation of that costs order that was made. They sought an order that the purchasers pay the vendors’ costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis. As set out in the supporting affidavit, the application, more precisely, was an order for indemnity costs:

  1. from 25 February 2023;

  2. from 20 September 2023; or

  3. from 25 June 2024.

  1. The application is based upon the purchasers’ rejection of multiple settlement offers, including one before the commencement of the proceeding.

Evidence

  1. Upon the Court’s receipt of the vendors’ application, I arranged, through my Associate, to convey to the parties…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Liew & Anor v Barthelmess & Ors (No.2) 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
[2024] NSWDC 403
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Liew and another, filed a suit against the applicants, Barthelmess and others, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case centred around an alleged breach of contract, involving a failure to deliver certain goods. The respondents sought relief, including damages, for the alleged breach. The applicants, in turn, filed a cross-claim for breach of contract. The court was required to determine several key legal issues, including whether the applicants were entitled to indemnity costs from the respondents, and if so, the appropriate amount. Another issue was whether the respondents were entitled to costs for the cross-claim. The court also needed to decide whether the applicants' offer to settle prior to the commencement of the proceeding could be considered in the costs assessment.

The court assessed the legal principles governing indemnity costs and concluded that the applicants were entitled to such costs from the respondents. The court reasoned that the respondents' conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable and vexatious. The applicants had made multiple offers of settlement, including one before the commencement of the proceeding, which the respondents had unreasonably rejected. The court further determined that the respondents were not entitled to costs for the cross-claim, as the applicants had a reasonable basis for their claim. The court ordered that the applicants were entitled to indemnity costs from the respondents, to be quantified by the Registrar. The court also ordered that the respondents bear their own costs for the cross-claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [46]

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.