Maio v Sacco (No. 2) - [2009] NSWSC 742

CITATION: Maio v Sacco (No. 2) [2009] NSWSC 742

HEARING DATE(S): 12 June 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
31 July 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: White J

DECISION: Refer to para 28 of judgment.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – interest – inherent jurisdiction to award interest on claim for equitable contribution – interest as compensation for loss of value of money - costs – determination of the “event” – factors relevant to costs discretion

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Maio v Sacco [2009] NSWSC 413
State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 62 FCR 371
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Ritchie (No. 2) (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 25 November 1988, unreported; BC8801284)
Kalls Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Ors v Baloglow & Anor (No. 3) [2007] NSWCA 298
Estate of Dugac v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (Federal Court of Australia, 6 February 1987, unreported; BC8701848)
Degmam Pty Ltd (in liq) v Wright (No. 2) [1983] 2 NSWLR 354
Lahoud v Lahoud [2006] NSWSC 126

PARTIES: John Maio
v
Antonio Sacco (No. 2)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4995/04

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: G Foster
Defendant: P Barham

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Phillip A Wilkins & Associates
Defendant: Wood Marshall Williams Lawyers

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WHITE J

Friday, 31 July 2009

4995/04 John Maio v Antonio Sacco (No. 2)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In my reasons for judgment of 21 May 2009 (Maio v Sacco [2009] NSWSC 413) I decided that on the sale of the rear lot the plaintiff is entitled to contribution from the defendant of $13,737 plus any interest which might be awarded. I stood the matter over to hear argument on questions of interest and costs. The following additional facts are relevant to those questions.

2 On 18 June 1996, the solicitors for the defendant wrote to the solicitors for the plaintiff offering that:

As a fair and reasonable compromise our client will accept responsibility for one half of the amount assessed by RGL Building Services. This offer will be open for seven (7) days from the date of this letter. If it is not accepted within that time we will advise our client that he should oppose any claim for contribution to the building costs incurred without his approval.

3 In concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to…

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 Maio v Sacco (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Maio v Sacco (No. 2) [2009] NSWSC 742
Case: [2009] NSWSC 742
Decision Date: 31 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Maio v Sacco, the parties were engaged in a legal dispute regarding the recovery of equitable contributions from one party to another. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the central issue revolved around the calculation of interest on a claim for equitable contribution, as well as the associated costs incurred by the parties. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether interest should be awarded on the claim for equitable contribution, the appropriate rate of interest, and the extent to which costs could be recovered in light of the court's determination.

The legal issues addressed by the court encompassed the principles governing the award of interest in cases of equitable contribution, the nature of interest as compensation for the loss of the use of money, and the exercise of discretion in determining costs. The court was called upon to interpret relevant statutes and case law to resolve these matters. In doing so, the court considered the inherent jurisdiction to award interest as a form of compensation for the loss of the value of money over time, as well as the factors relevant to the exercise of discretion in awarding costs.

The court concluded that interest could be awarded on a claim for equitable contribution, as it serves to compensate the contributor for the loss of the use of their money during the period prior to the recovery. The court determined that the interest should be calculated from the date when the party became liable to make the contribution, up until the date of judgment. The court also considered various factors in exercising its discretion to award costs, including the nature of the dispute, the conduct of the parties, and the outcome of the proceedings. Ultimately, the court found that the costs incurred by the parties were reasonable and appropriate, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

In addition to the aforementioned findings, the court made specific orders regarding the payment of interest and costs. The court ordered that interest be paid on the amount of the equitable contribution from the date when the party became liable to contribute until the date of judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the proceeding, with certain exceptions where the court found that the costs were unreasonable or unnecessary. These orders were made in accordance with the court's determination of the legal issues and the exercise of its discretion in the matter.

Orders