Singh v Singh (No 2) - [2024] NSWSC 1269

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Singh v Singh (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1269
Hearing dates: On the papers, last submissions received 2 September 2024
Date of orders: 10 October 2024
Decision date: 10 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Pike J
Decision:
(1)   Subject to order 2, the defendants to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings to date including the costs of the Cross Summons.
(2)   The plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ costs of the plaintiffs’ claim for a buyout order as set out in prayers 3A to 3E of the Amended Summons, which include the costs of the hearing on 29 July 2024.
(3)   The costs of the winding up of the partnership otherwise be paid out of the assets of the partnership.

Catchwords:
COSTS – costs order – dissolution of partnership – general rule for costs in the dissolution of a partnership – Calderbank offer – where breakdown of partnership and history of proceedings favoured departure from usual order in partnership cases – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98
Partnership Act 1892 (NSW) s 35

Cases Cited:
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Curac v Morey-Hype [2006] NSWSC 1171
Joudo v Joudo (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 469
Pirrottina v Pirrottina (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1053
Shellharbour City Council v Minister for Local Government [2017] NSWCA 256
Singh v Singh [2024] NSWSC 932

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Costs
Parties: Labh Singh (First Plaintiff/First Cross-Defendant)
Baljeet Singh (Second Plaintiff/Second Cross-Defendant)
Jaswant Singh (Third Plaintiff/Fourth Cross-Defendant)
Rajvinder Kaur Singh (Fourth Plaintiff/Third Cross-Defendant)
Jasvir Kaur Tiwana (Fifth Plaintiff/Fifth Cross-Defendant)
Manjit Singh Tiwana (Sixth Plaintiff/Sixth Cross-Defendant)
Estate of the Late Manjit Kaur Singh (Seventh Plaintiff/Seventh Cross-Defendant)
Paramjit Singh (Eighth Plaintiff/Eighth Cross-Defendant)
Rashpal Kaur Singh (First Defendant/First Cross-Claimant)
Phoola Singh (Second Defendant/Second Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
B May (Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants)
Solicitors:
Walsh & Associates (Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants)
G & A Legal (Defendants/Cross-Claimants)

File Number(s): 2022/00302857
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 30 July 2024, I delivered judgment in these proceedings: Singh v Singh [2024] NSWSC 932 (Principal Judgment). These reasons assume familiarity with and maintain the same defined terms as used in the Principal Judgment.
In the Principal Judgment, I determined that the Partnership should be wound up and that a receiver should be appointed to sell the Property and any Partnership Assets. I directed the parties to confer to seek to agree orders for the winding up of the Partnership and to seek to agree an appropriate order as to costs.
The parties agreed orders in relation to the winding up of the Partnership and I made those orders on 13 August 2024. They were not able to agree an order as to costs. Accordingly, these reasons determine the appropriate costs order.

Brief chronology relevant to costs

To determine the issue of costs, a brief overview of the proceedings, the correspondence between the parties, and the offers made by each party relevant to costs is necessary.
The Partnership Deed was entered into between all…

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 Singh (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Singh v Singh (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1269
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1269
Decision Date: 10 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Singh and Singh, with the dispute arising from the dissolution of their partnership. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue the court had to address was whether the usual order for costs in partnership dissolution cases should be departed from. The case had a contentious history, marked by a breakdown of the partnership and a series of legal proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the circumstances justified a deviation from the general rule for costs in such cases.

The court examined the general rule for costs in partnership dissolution cases, which typically follows the principle that the unsuccessful party bears the costs of the successful party. However, the court also considered the history of the proceedings and the breakdown of the partnership, which included allegations of misconduct and breaches of fiduciary duty. The court found that these factors warranted a departure from the usual order for costs. The court also took into account a Calderbank offer made by one party, which the other party rejected. The court concluded that the history of the proceedings and the breakdown of the partnership favoured a departure from the usual order for costs, and that there was no question of principle involved in doing so.

The court ordered that the successful party be awarded costs, but that the order would be modified to reflect the unique circumstances of the case. The court found that the unsuccessful party's conduct during the proceedings had been unreasonable and that this warranted a departure from the usual order for costs. The court also considered the Calderbank offer and the fact that the unsuccessful party had rejected it. The court determined that the costs order should reflect the fact that the unsuccessful party had acted unreasonably and that this had contributed to the overall costs of the proceedings.

The final orders of the court included a modified costs order that took into account the unique circumstances of the case. The court found that the successful party was entitled to be awarded costs, but that the order should be modified to reflect the unreasonable conduct of the unsuccessful party. The court also considered the Calderbank offer and the fact that the unsuccessful party had rejected it. The court determined that the costs order should reflect the fact that the unsuccessful party had acted unreasonably and that this had contributed to the overall costs of the proceedings. The court's decision provides guidance for future cases involving the dissolution of partnerships and the allocation of costs.

Orders