Spartalis v BMD Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2015] SASCFC 28

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Civil)
SPARTALIS v BMD CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (No 2)
[2015] SASCFC 28
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Peek, The Honourable Justice Blue and The Honourable Justice Parker)
26 March 2015
INTEREST - RATE OF INTEREST AND COMPOUND INTEREST - RATE IN OTHER CASES
PROCEDURE - COSTS - DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE - CONDUCT OF PARTIES - DEMAND, OFFER AND CONSENT
PROCEDURE - COSTS - APPEALS AS TO COSTS - WRONG EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
Cross-appeal against a judgment of the District Court in relation to interest payable on the judgment sum and the award of costs. The Full Court previously dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal on the substantive matters. The District Court awarded damages to the plaintiff for wrongful summary dismissal from employment by the defendant. Interest was awarded on the judgment sum at a rate of 6% per annum. The award of damages (including interest) exceeded the filed settlement offer by the defendant by a small margin. Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Whether the trial judge erred in determining the interest rate to be applied on the judgment sum. Whether the trial judge erred in awarding costs in favour of the plaintiff.
Held (the Court):
Cross-appeal dismissed.
1. The discretion of the trial judge did not miscarry in determining the rate of interest to be applied on the judgment sum. The judge treated the Supreme Court practice directions as merely a relevant consideration to be taken into account in the exercise of her discretion.
2. The discretion of the trial judge did not miscarry in awarding costs in favour of the plaintiff. For the purpose of comparing the filed settlement offer with the award of damages, the interest period ends on the date of the filed offer. While the award of damages exceeded the filed offer by a small margin, and the plaintiff did not succeed on all issues at trial, the plaintiff succeeded on the two crucial factual issues at trial.
District Court Act 1992 s 39; Supreme Court Practice Directions 2006 Practice Direction 13.3; Supreme Court Civil Supplementary Rules 2014 Rule 208, referred to.
Davies v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] SASC 197; Kazar v Kargarian (2011) 197 FCR 113; Southern Resources Ltd v Residues Treatment and Trading Co Ltd (1990) 56 SASR 455, considered.

SPARTALIS v BMD CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (No 2)
[2015] SASCFC 28
Full Court: Peek, Blue and Parker JJ

THE COURT: This Court previously dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal against a judgment of the District Court except in so far as the cross-appeal related to the interest payable on the judgment sum and the basis upon which costs were awarded. Those issues were left to be decided after hearing further from the parties. This judgment deals with those matters.
Interest
The trial judge awarded interest at 6% per annum on the judgment sum for the period commencing on 22 November 2010, when Mr Spartalis…

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 Spartalis v BMD Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Spartalis v BMD Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] SASCFC 28
Case: [2015] SASCFC 28
Decision Date: 26 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland considered a cross-appeal concerning the award of interest and costs following a District Court judgment. The District Court had awarded damages to the plaintiff, Mr Spartalis, for wrongful summary dismissal by the defendant, BMD Constructions Pty Ltd. The plaintiff was awarded interest on the judgment sum at a rate of 6% per annum. The defendant's filed settlement offer had been exceeded by the total award of damages, including interest, by a small margin, yet costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the District Court had erred in its discretion regarding the award of costs, particularly in light of the defendant's settlement offer, and whether the rate of interest awarded was appropriate. The Full Court had previously dismissed appeals and cross-appeals relating to the substantive findings of liability and the quantum of damages.

The Full Court reasoned that the District Court's decision to award costs to the plaintiff, despite the defendant's settlement offer being marginally exceeded, was within its discretion. The court noted that the margin by which the offer was exceeded was small and that the overall conduct of the parties, which was not detailed in the provided text, likely informed the District Court's decision. The court also implicitly upheld the District Court's decision on the rate of interest by not disturbing it.

Consequently, the Full Court dismissed the cross-appeal concerning the costs order and made no order as to the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal before it.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

For these reasons the appeal against the costs order should be dismissed. Conclusion We dismiss the cross-appeal insofar as it has not been dealt with by our previous order. We make no order as to the costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.