MTP v PAH (No 2)

In the case of MTP v PAH (No 2), the parties were engaged in a de facto property dispute. The applicant, MTP, sought indemnity costs against the respondent, PAH, as well as interest on the judgment sum, security for the judgment debt, and orders for costs. The dispute was heard in the court, which had to determine whether PAH's offer to settle was made under the UCPR and if it should result in indemnity costs. Additionally, the court had to decide the appropriate rate and amount of interest to be awarded and whether security for the judgment debt should be ordered, given PAH's history of circumventing court orders.

The court examined whether PAH's offer to settle complied with UCPR r 360, which requires offers to settle to be open for no less than 14 days. PAH's offer was open for only five days, leading to the conclusion that it did not comply with the UCPR. Consequently, the court awarded indemnity costs to MTP. Regarding the interest on the judgment sum, the court ordered PAH to pay interest at a specified rate. Considering PAH's history of non-compliance, the court also ordered security for the judgment debt, which involved charging certain real property owned by PAH in favour of MTP.

The court's decision was that PAH should pay the applicant's costs of the application, to be assessed. Additionally, PAH was ordered to pay interest in the sum of $10,778.04 on the judgment sum. Until PAH satisfied the judgment and the orders for costs, PAH's real property was charged in favour of MTP. PAH was also prohibited from disposing of or dealing with the charged property without MTP's consent. Furthermore, MTP was granted liberty to lodge caveats over the specified real property to prevent PAH from transferring or dealing with the property without MTP's knowledge.