Legal Research
Cases
Singh v Lugondela (Costs)

Singh v Lugondela (Costs)

Case [2020] VSC 799 2 December 2020

Costs

Limitation Periods

Interest on Judgment Sum

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S CI 2017 05019

RAGHBIR SINGH

Plaintiff

BORA FRANCINE KAHEBWA LUGONDELA (by litigation guardian, TIM ROBINSON) & ORS

(according to the attached Schedule)

Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Derham AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Singh v Lugondela (Costs)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 799

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Costs — Whether recovery of damages of less than $100,000 for breach of a contract of sale of land should be the subject of an ‘otherwise order’ under r 63.24 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic).

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interest on judgment sum – Whether good cause shown to the contrary for the purposes of the calculation of interest under s 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr K E W Mihaly	Vernon Da Gama & Associates
For the First Defendant	Mr A Hando	Russell Kennedy
For the Second Defendant	No appearance
For the Third Parties	Mr C Smith	BN Law Limited trading as Barry.Nilsson

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

I published reasons for judgment in an assessment of damages in this proceeding on 31 August 2020: Singh v Lugondela [2020] VSC 544 (‘Reasons’). By Order made on 22 September 2020, the parties were required to file and serve submissions as to calculation of interest and as to the costs of the proceeding. The parties have made submissions in writing and these reasons explain my decision on those issues.

The plaintiff is entitled to damages assessed in the sum of $31,370.88, plus interest pursuant to s 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (‘SCA’). The plaintiff claims damages in the nature of interest at the rate prescribed under s 2 of the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983 (Vic) (‘PIRA’), being 10% for the period from the commencement of the proceeding on 11 December 2017 to the date of judgment, and his costs in the proceeding, including reserved costs, on a standard basis.

The first defendant does not challenge the plaintiff’s claim to interest, but submits that r 63.24(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (‘Rules’) applies and the costs should be assessed on the scale of costs applicable in the County Court of Victoria.

The third parties dispute both the costs and the interest rate, contending that r 63.24(1) is applicable to limit the costs and that interest should be calculated to compensate the plaintiff for being kept out of funds and not as a penalty and that this is not a case where an award of interest is required in order to provide encouragement for early settlement of proceedings. The third parties say that the appropriate interest rate is that applicable in the Commonwealth jurisdiction, 4% above the cash rate published by…

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 Singh v Lugondela (Costs)

Details

AGLC: Singh v Lugondela (Costs) [2020] VSC 799
Case: [2020] VSC 799
Decision Date: 2 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Lugondela involved a dispute between the parties over the recovery of damages for breach of a contract of sale of land. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the primary focus being on the costs associated with the proceedings and the calculation of interest on the judgment sum. The defendant, Lugondela, was seeking an order for costs under rule 63.24 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), while the plaintiff, Singh, contested this application, arguing that damages of less than $100,000 should not be subject to such an order. Additionally, the case addressed the question of whether there was good cause shown to the contrary for the purposes of calculating interest on the judgment sum under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).

The court was tasked with determining whether the recovery of damages under $100,000 for breach of a contract of sale of land should be subject to an 'otherwise order' for costs under rule 63.24 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). Furthermore, the court had to assess whether there was good cause shown to the contrary for the purposes of calculating interest on the judgment sum under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). The primary legal issues centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant rules and statutes, as well as the principles of fairness and proportionality in the context of costs and interest.

In its decision, the court held that damages of less than $100,000 for breach of a contract of sale of land should not be subject to an 'otherwise order' for costs under rule 63.24 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). The court found that the language of the rule was clear and unambiguous, and that there was no basis for departing from the general principle that such damages were not subject to an otherwise order. Regarding the calculation of interest on the judgment sum, the court determined that there was no good cause shown to the contrary for the purposes of section 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). Consequently, the court upheld the application of the statutory interest rate, absent any evidence or argument to the contrary.

The court's final orders were that damages of less than $100,000 for breach of a contract of sale of land should not be subject to an 'otherwise order' for costs under rule 63.24 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), and that the statutory interest rate should apply in the absence of good cause shown to the contrary under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).

Orders