Mendonca v Tonna (No 3)

Case [2020] NSWCA 332


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mendonca v Tonna (No 3) [2020] NSWCA 332
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 16 December 2020
Decision date: 16 December 2020
Before: Bell P;
Meagher JA;
Payne JA.
Decision:

(1)   Vary order 3 made on 26 August 2020 as follows:

Appellant pay respondents’ costs of the appeal to be assessed:

(i)    Up to and including 22 May 2020 on the ordinary basis; and

(ii)   From 23 May 2020 on an indemnity basis.

(2)   Dismiss Dr Mendonca’s amended notice of motion filed 4 September 2020.

(3)   Dr Mendonca pay the respondents’ costs of that amended notice of motion.

(4)   Dr Mendonca pay the respondents’ costs of their notice of motion filed 3 September 2020.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – application to reopen judgment dismissing appeal – where application relies in part on “further” evidence not led at trial or on appeal – no issue of principle

COSTS – ordinary or indemnity – offer of compromise – result less favourable to offeree – whether rejection of offer unreasonable – no issue of principle

Legislation Cited:

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A(7), (8)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.15, 36.16, 42.14, 51.47. 51.48

Cases Cited:

Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155

Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300; [1993] HCA 6

Bobolas v Waverley Council [2014] NSWCA 131

Croghan v Blacktown City Council (2019) 100 NSWLR 757; [2019] NSWCA 248

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Majak v Rose (No 5) [2017] NSWCA 238

Mega-Top Cargo Pty Ltd v Moneytech Services Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 3

Mendonca v Tonna [2020] HCASL 240

Mendonca v Tonna [2020] NSWCA 196

Mendonca v Tonna [2020] NSWCA 224

Searle v Commonwealth (2019) 100 NSWLR 55; [2019] NSWCA 127

Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Renuka Mendonca (applicant)
Mark Tonna (first respondent)
Lorraine Tonna (second respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant (self-represented)
P Newton and J Gatland (respondents)

Solicitors:
Applicant (self-represented)
Adams & Partners (respondents)
File Number(s): 2020/13642
Publication restriction: N/A
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity Division
Citation:

[2019] NSWSC 1849; [2020] NSWSC 306

Date of Decision:
20 December 2019; 25 March 2020
Before:
Ward CJ in Eq
File Number(s):
2016/182075; 2017/292576

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: On 26 August 2020 this Court dismissed Dr Mendonca’s appeal from orders of Ward CJ in Eq declaring that she held the legal title to a property at Galston on a resulting trust for herself and Mr and Mrs Tonna in proportions reflecting their respective contributions to the purchase of that property. The Court also upheld her Honour’s rejection of Dr Mendonca’s claims that Mr and Mrs Tonna had occupied the Galston property from the time of its purchase under a residential tenancy agreement and that they had breached that agreement (Mendonca v Tonna [2020] NSWCA 196).

  2. On 2 September 2020, Dr…

Continue reading Mendonca v Tonna (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mendonca v Tonna (No 3) [2020] NSWCA 332
Case
[2020] NSWCA 332
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this matter were Dr Mendonca (the appellant) and the respondents. The dispute concerned an application to reopen a judgment that had dismissed an appeal, with the application relying partly on further evidence not previously presented. The matter came before Bell P, Meagher and Payne JJA of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the judgment dismissing the appeal should be reopened, particularly in light of the "further" evidence tendered. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether the costs of the appeal should be awarded on an ordinary or indemnity basis, given an offer of compromise and the outcome for the offeree.

The Court dismissed Dr Mendonca's application to reopen the judgment, finding no issue of principle that would warrant such a course, especially given the nature of the further evidence. Regarding costs, the Court varied a previous order. It ordered that the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal assessed on the ordinary basis up to and including 22 May 2020, and on an indemnity basis from 23 May 2020 onwards. This decision reflected the Court's assessment of the reasonableness of rejecting the offer of compromise in light of the subsequent proceedings. The Court also ordered Dr Mendonca to pay the respondents’ costs of his amended notice of motion and of the respondents’ notice of motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Vary order 3 made on 26 August 2020 as follows:

Appellant pay respondents’ costs of the appeal to be assessed:

(i) Up to and including 22 May 2020 on the ordinary basis; and

(ii) From 23 May 2020 on an indemnity basis.

(2) Dismiss Dr Mendonca’s amended notice of motion filed 4 September 2020.

(3) Dr Mendonca pay the respondents’ costs of that amended notice of motion.

(4) Dr Mendonca pay the respondents’ costs of their notice of motion filed 3 September 2020.

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.