Madanat v David (No 2) - [2020] NSWSC 686

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Madanat v David (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 686
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 04 June 2020
Decision date: 04 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See pars [19] and [21]

Catchwords: COSTS — Party/Party — Specific court rules in relation to costs — Action which should have been brought in inferior court – where the proceedings could have been commenced in the Local Court – where the costs should be assessed as if the notice of motion had been heard by the Local Court of New South Wales
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Madanat v David [2020] NSWSC 284
Wong v Maroubra Automotive Refinishers Pty Ltd; Ayres v Maroubra Automotive Refinishers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 364
Category: Costs
Parties: Joanna Madanat (plaintiff / respondent / applicant)
Suzy David (first defendant / applicant / respondent)
Fred David (second defendant / applicant / respondent)
Representation:
Counsel: M Castle (plaintiff / respondent / applicant)
M Dulhunty (first and second defendants / applicant / respondent)
Solicitors: Firths (plaintiff / respondent / applicant)
David Legal (first and second defendants / applicant / respondent)

File Number(s): 2019 / 274481

Judgment

I delivered judgment on the defendants’ notice of motion seeking an order summarily dismissing the plaintiff’s claim on 25 March 2020: Madanat v David [2020] NSWSC 284. I made an order dismissing the notice of motion.
I invited the parties to deliver submissions on the issue of the costs order that should be made by the Court. I have now received those submissions.
In the ordinary case, it would be appropriate for the Court to make an order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the notice of motion on the ordinary basis, as the costs would then follow the event: see Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) r 42.1.
However, this is not an ordinary case as the amount of the plaintiff’s claim in this Court is $5,160.04. As that amount is, to say the least, a minute fraction of the $500,000 referred to in UCPR r 42.34, there is a question as to whether the plaintiff, if successful in any aspect of these proceedings, should be paid her costs.
As explained in the principal judgment, a dispute arose between the plaintiff, who at one stage was a client of the defendants, who are solicitors, as to the reasonableness of the defendants’ costs and disbursements in the sum of $65,000 in respect of a personal injury claim that was settled by the plaintiff, and which the plaintiff had paid.
After some acrimonious correspondence between the present solicitors for the plaintiff and the defendants, in which legal proceedings were threatened, the defendants repaid the plaintiff $32,510.50, for the purpose of settling the claim and to avoid the cost and inconvenience of becoming involved in contested court proceedings.
No doubt, the defendants then thought that that…

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 Madanat v David (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Madanat v David (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 686
Case: [2020] NSWSC 686
Decision Date: 04 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Madanat v David (No 2), the dispute involved a claim for costs, with the proceedings originally commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff, who had initiated the proceedings in the Supreme Court, should have instead filed the action in the Local Court of New South Wales. The defendant argued that the claim should have been made in the Local Court due to the nature and amount of the claim, and sought to have the costs assessed as if the case had been heard by the Local Court.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and guidelines, including section 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and the relevant cost rules, to determine the appropriate forum for the action. The court examined the jurisdictional limits of the Local Court and the criteria for determining whether a matter should be heard in the Supreme Court. It was established that the claim fell within the monetary limits of the Local Court and did not involve complex legal or factual issues that would necessitate a hearing in the Supreme Court. The court concluded that the action should have been brought in the Local Court and ordered that the costs be assessed as if the matter had been heard in that court.

Following the reasoning, the court directed that the costs incurred in the Supreme Court be reduced to reflect what they would have been had the case been heard in the Local Court. This included assessing the costs based on the simplified procedures and lower cost caps applicable to the Local Court. The decision underscored the importance of parties selecting the appropriate forum for their legal claims to avoid unnecessary costs and ensure that cases are heard in the most suitable court.

The final orders of the court mandated that the costs incurred in the Supreme Court be recalculated in accordance with the cost rules applicable to the Local Court of New South Wales, and directed the parties to provide further details for the reassessment of costs. The recalculated costs were to reflect the lower thresholds and simplified procedures of the Local Court, thereby ensuring that the plaintiff's decision to initiate the proceedings in the Supreme Court did not result in an unjustifiable financial burden.

Orders