Raad v State of New South Wales (No 2) - [2017] NSWDC 94

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Raad v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 94
Hearing dates: 24 April 2017
Date of orders: 02 May 2017
Decision date: 02 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) The parties should bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the award of 4% per annum interest on the damages amount of $20,000;
(2) Order 3 of the orders made on 23 March 2017 is vacated;
(3) The defendant is to pay 90% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:
Interest - pre-judgment – tort of false imprisonment – whether the court rates should be used or rates similar to those for non-economic loss
Costs – where plaintiff has not succeeded on some aspects of case including some torts alleged – whether the defendant should be ordered to pay only a proportion of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited: Kooee Communications Pty Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 85
McLaughlin v Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 306
Metropolitan Meat Industry Board v Williams (1991) 24 NSWLR 54
Moran v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWDC 19
MPB (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657
Shield Mercantile v Citigroup [2013] NSWSC 287
State of New South Wales v Abed [2014] NSWCA 419
Category: Costs
Parties: Johnny Raad (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Canceri (Plaintiff)
M Hutchings (Defendant)
Solicitors:
O'Brien Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Henry Davis York (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/00119450

Judgment

In these proceedings, after a trial lasting eight days, I handed down reasons for decision on 23 March 2017. In paragraph 274 of those reasons I set out the orders to be made in the proceedings as follows:

“(1)   There is to be judgment for the plaintiff;
(2)   Liberty to the parties to bring in short minutes of order reflecting the mathematically agreed judgment sum including interest;
(3)   The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed;
(4)   Liberty to the parties to apply to vary the costs order in (3) above;
(5)   The exhibits may be returned after 28 days.”

The parties sought an opportunity to make submissions to the court in relation to the question of the rate of interest, if any, to be awarded on the $20,000 damages for false imprisonment (see paragraph 273 of the reasons for decision) and the question of costs.

Interest

Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) provides as follows:

“100 Interest up to judgment
(1) In proceedings for the recovery of money (including any debt or damages or the value of any goods), the court may include interest in the amount for which judgment is given, the interest to be calculated at such rate as the court thinks fit:
(a) on the whole or any part of the money, and

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 Raad v State of New South Wales (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Raad v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 94
Case: [2017] NSWDC 94
Decision Date: 02 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Raad v State of New South Wales (No 2), the plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment among other torts. The dispute involved the rate of pre-judgment interest to be applied to the awarded damages and the allocation of costs between the parties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were the appropriate rate of pre-judgment interest for the damages awarded and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties given the plaintiff's partial success in the case. The court had to decide whether the standard court rates should be applied or if a different rate, similar to those used for non-economic loss, should be considered. Additionally, the court needed to determine the proportion of costs the defendant should bear, considering the plaintiff's partial success in the proceedings.

The court ruled that the standard court rates for pre-judgment interest should apply to the damages awarded. This decision was made despite arguments for a different rate. Regarding costs, the court concluded that the defendant should bear 90% of the plaintiff's costs, reflecting the plaintiff's partial success in the case. The court found that this allocation was fair and just under the circumstances.

The final orders included the adjustment of the interest rate to 4% per annum, the vacating of a previous order regarding interest, and the mandating of the defendant to pay 90% of the plaintiff's costs. These orders were intended to reflect the court's decisions on the legal issues presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The parties should bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the award of 4% per annum interest on the damages amount of $20,000;

(2) Order 3 of the orders made on 23 March 2017 is vacated;

(3) The defendant is to pay 90% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Raad v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 94
Hearing dates:	24 April 2017
Date of orders:	02 May 2017
Decision date:	02 May 2017
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) The parties should bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the award of 4% per annum interest on the damages amount of $20,000; (2) Order 3 of the orders made on 23 March 2017 is vacated; (3) The defendant is to pay 90% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:	Interest - pre-judgment – tort of false imprisonment – whether the court rates should be used or rates similar to those for non-economic loss Costs – where plaintiff has not succeeded on some aspects of case including some torts alleged – whether the defendant should be ordered to pay only a proportion of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited:	Kooee Communications Pty Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 85 McLaughlin v Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 306 Metropolitan Meat Industry Board v Williams (1991) 24 NSWLR 54 Moran v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWDC 19 MPB (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657 Shield Mercantile v Citigroup [2013] NSWSC 287 State of New South Wales v Abed [2014] NSWCA 419
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Johnny Raad (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: A Canceri (Plaintiff) M Hutchings (Defendant) Solicitors: O'Brien Solicitors (Plaintiff) Henry Davis York (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2015/00119450