Sead Ramic v Proelectrical Pty Ltd

[2016] NSWSC 591

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sead Ramic v Proelectrical Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 591

Hearing dates:

5 April 2016

Date of orders:

05 April 2016

Decision date:

05 April 2016

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Wilson J

Decision:

(1) Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $750,000.

 

(2) Order against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the costs of the proceedings.

 (3) Adjourn the balance of the proceedings into the Registrar’s list 20 April 2016 at 9 am.

Catchwords:

COSTS – Offer of compromise – r 20.26 and r 27 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – balance of proceedings adjourned

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Sead Ramic (Plaintiff)
Proelectrical Pty Ltd (Defendant)
RAMS Electrical Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)

Representation:

J Anderson (Plaintiff)
G Vanguteren (Defendant)
P Perry (Second Defendant)

File Number(s):

2013/384792

Publication restriction:

None

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. Before the Court for determination is a question of acceptance of an offer of compromise pursuant to r 20.26 and 27 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

2. The matter has been listed for hearing before this Court due to start, as I understand it, yesterday. An offer of compromise was made and there was, at least on the plaintiff's part, and it appears more generally, an understanding that the compromise had been accepted, and that there was therefore no need for any hearing of the merits of the claim.

3. The listing was vacated and the matter was simply to be listed today to finalise the judgment in accordance with the offer of compromise.

4. The plaintiff discovered at a late stage that the defendant was unwilling to finalise the matter, it would appear because of some outstanding documentary issue and because a cross-claim has yet to finally resolve, albeit it is resolved as I understand it in principle.

5. The defendant asks that proceedings today be adjourned for two weeks so that the whole of the proceedings in which the defendant is involved, that is as both defendant and cross-claimant, can be finalised.

6. Whilst there is some superficial attraction in that, for no other reason than to see the whole matter resolved at the same time, as Mr Anderson points out, the plaintiff is not a party to the cross-claim, and having resolved its claim with the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to the judgment which had been agreed between the parties.

7. I am inclined to accept that argument and accordingly I propose to make the orders that the plaintiff asks the Court to make today. They being, judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $750,000, with a further order against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the costs of today.

8. I make an order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

9. I will adjourn the balance of the proceedings into the Registrars List at 9am on 20 April 2015.

**********

Decision last updated: 10 May 2016