Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors

Case [2010] NSWADT 1



CITATION: Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors [2010] NSWADT 1
DIVISION: Retail Leases Division
PARTIES:

Applicants:
Rucom Pty Limited and
Vladimir Dmitchenko

Respondents:
Mutiplex Latitude Retail Landowner Pty Limited
Brookfield Multiplex W S Retail Landowner Pty Limited and
AWPF Management No. 2 Pty Ltd
C B Richard Ellis Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER: 095044; 099018
HEARING DATES: on the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 4 August 2009
 
DATE OF DECISION: 

4 January 2010
BEFORE: Molloy G - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: Costs - indemnity costs
MATTER FOR DECISION: costs
LEGISLATION CITED: Retail Leases Act 1994
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
CASES CITED: Alramon Pty Ltd v. Jonamill Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWADT302
Armstrong Jones Management Pty Limited v. Saies-Bond & Associates Pty Limited (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 58
Auelua v. Ministry of Transport [2009] NSWADT 134
Auto Panel Beaters & Radiators Pty Ltd (in liq) v. Barclays Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWSC 1308
AWFM Management Pty Limited v. Red Roll Pty Limited [2009] NSWADTAP
Barsoum v. Glebe Administration Board (No. 2) [2002] NSWADT 174
Building Professionals Board v. Ball (No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 8
BE v. University of Technology, Sydney (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 22
Bayne v. Blake (No 3) (2009) CLR 366
Buzrio Pty Ltd v. Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 1132
Colleja v. Malli [2001] NSWADT 20
Colgate Palmolive Co v. Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Corrigan & Gibson v. Watson [2009] NSWADT 110
Cripps v. G & M Dawson Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 81
Denovan v. Tynan [2009] NSWADT 159
Gizah Pty Limited v. AXA Trustees Limited (No. 2) [2001] NSWADT 164
GN & Anor v. Public Guardian & anor [2009] NSWADTAP 6
Haralovic & Carr v. Law Society of NSW (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 97
Kyriacou v. Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2009] NSWADT 175
Law Society of NSW v. Jayawardena [2008] NSWADT 187
Law Society of NSW v. Martin [2008] NSWADT 305
Liverpool City Council v. Estephen [2009] NSWCA 161
Ludon Investments No 7 Pty Ltd v. Barton [2009] NSWSC 1179
McGuirk v. Vice-Chancellor University of NSW (No 3) [2009] NSWADTAP 46
Nawi No. 3 Pty Ltd & Ors v. ING Management Ltd [2005] NSWADT 235
NSW Bar Association v. Archer (No.5) [2005] NSWADT 72
O’Neill v. Henry (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 294
Oshlack v. Richmond River Council [1998] 193CLR 72
Peng v. Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2009] NSWADT 295
Potier v. Department of Corrective Services [2009] NSWADT 143
Profilio v. Coogee Bay Village Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 319
Riskalla v. Consulate General of Portugal in Sydney [2009] NSWIRComm 209
Spuds Surf Chatswood Pty Limited v. P T Limited [2007] NSWADT 130
Salon Today Pty Limited v. MMIR Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 71
Tennent v. Moukhlina (No 2) (costs) [2009] NSWADTAP Trust Company of Australia Ltd v. Craig & Ors [2005] NSWADT 65
Tuffy v. Vaughan (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 242
White ACT (in liq) v. G B White [2004] NSWSC 303
White ACT (in…

Continue reading Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors [2010] NSWADT 1
Case
[2010] NSWADT 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rucom Pty Ltd and Anor v Multiplex & Ors, the applicants sought to challenge the costs orders made in the tribunal and appeal panel proceedings. The nature of the dispute involved complex issues surrounding the assessment of costs in the context of a construction dispute. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were the appropriateness of the costs orders made in the tribunal and appeal panel proceedings, and whether these orders should be varied to be paid on an indemnity basis. The applicants argued that the original costs orders were excessive and should be reduced or paid on an indemnity basis. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the original costs orders were fair and should be upheld.

The court carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. It was determined that the applicants' argument for a variation of the costs orders was not well-founded. The court found that the tribunal and appeal panel had appropriately exercised their discretion in making the original costs orders. Consequently, the applicants' application to vary the costs orders was dismissed, and it was ordered that the applicants pay the costs of the second and third respondents as agreed or assessed, on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicants pay the costs as agreed or assessed of the Second and Third Respondents in the proceedings in the Tribunal and before the Appeal Panel, such costs to be assessed and paid on a indemnity basis

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.