Oakwood Sydney Pty Ltd v You - [2020] NSWSC 583

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Oakwood Sydney Pty Ltd v You [2020] NSWSC 583
Hearing dates: 13 May 2020
Date of orders: 13 May 2020
Decision date: 13 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) An order for the foreign judgment dated 12 September 2018 of the Seoul Central District Court of the Republic of Korea, by which it was adjudged that Jun Won You, Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd, and Hana Bank Co. Ltd jointly pay money to Oakwood Sydney Pty Ltd (ACN: 132 365 309) be registered under Part 2, s 6(2) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) for:

(a) the sum of W133,045,513 Korean Won.

(2) The defendant pay the costs of and incidental to the preparation of the application for the obtaining of the order for registration of that judgment.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to defence of the summons and the costs of and incidental to the preparation of written submissions and the appearance of counsel today, given the unsuccessful pressing of paragraph 1(b) in the summons.
Catchwords:
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW — foreign judgments and orders — registration of foreign judgment — registration of judgment sum — order seeking interest not pressed
COSTS — party/party — exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event — plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs of and incidental to defence of the summons and costs of and incidental to the preparation of written submissions and the appearance of counsel today, as relief sought in summons not pressed
Legislation Cited: Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Oakwood Sydney Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Jun Won You (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J R Young (Defendant)
Solicitors:
D Cheon (Plaintiff)
S Kim (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/15927
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The plaintiff filed a summons on 16 January 2019 seeking an order for registration of a foreign judgment obtained by it in the Seoul Central District Court in the Republic of Korea on 12 September 2018. The relief claimed in the summons sought, firstly, registration of the judgment sum set out in the judgment, appended to the affidavit of Mr Goo, affirmed on 16 January 2020, as well as the costs of and incidental to the application for the order and of registration of the judgment.
However the summons sought an additional order (1(b)), which appears to be a type of ongoing claim for interest on the judgment sum after judgment was given. It is this order that was the subject of contention by the defendant.
The defendant appears by his counsel Mr Young today. Mr Cheon solicitor appears for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff relies upon two affidavits of Mr Goo, affirmed 16 January 2020 and 16 April 2020 respectively. There were orders made for the supply of written submissions in support of and in response to the plaintiff's application. I am not being critical of this, but the plaintiff's solicitor chose not to file written submissions until after…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Oakwood Sydney Pty Ltd v You 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: [2020] NSWSC 583
Decision Date: 13 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Oakwood Sydney Pty Ltd v You, the dispute centred around the registration of a foreign judgment in Australia and the sum to be registered. Oakwood Sydney, the plaintiff, sought to register a foreign judgment in the Federal Court of Australia, which was issued in a different jurisdiction. The defendant, You, contested the registration of the judgment, arguing that the sum registered was incorrect and that Oakwood Sydney had not pursued the interest claimed in the original judgment.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the foreign judgment could be registered in Australia, the correctness of the sum registered, and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties. The court had to determine if the foreign judgment was a judgment that could be registered in Australia and whether the sum registered was accurate. Additionally, the court needed to decide the costs implications, particularly in light of Oakwood Sydney’s failure to pursue the interest claimed in the original judgment.

The court found that the foreign judgment was registrable in Australia and that the sum registered was correct. However, the court noted that Oakwood Sydney did not press for the interest claimed in the original judgment, which affected the costs order. The court held that Oakwood Sydney should bear the costs of defending the summons and the costs associated with the preparation of written submissions and the appearance of counsel. The reasoning was based on the plaintiff’s decision not to pursue the interest, which influenced the court's decision on costs.

Accordingly, the court ordered that Oakwood Sydney pay You's costs of and incidental to the defence of the summons, as well as the costs of and incidental to the preparation of written submissions and the appearance of counsel. The judgment highlights the importance of pursuing all claims in a foreign judgment when seeking its registration in Australia and the potential cost implications of not doing so.

Orders