Stein v Board - [2020] NSWSC 1358

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stein v Board [2020] NSWSC 1358
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 6 October 2020
Decision date: 06 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Darke J
Decision:
Order that the proceedings be dismissed and that each party bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
COSTS – proceedings settled save as to costs – no determination following a hearing on the merits – neither party’s conduct in relation to the litigation unreasonable – appropriate that each party bear its own costs of the proceedings

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 74K

Cases Cited:
Australiawide Airlines Ltd v Aspirion Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 365
Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs Pty Ltd v Gloria Stack [2003] NSWCA 302
Fordyce v Fordham (2006) 67 NSWLR 497; [2006] NSWCA 274
Nichols v NFS Agribusiness Pty Ltd (2018) 97 NSWLR 681; [2018] NSWCA 84
Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622

Category: Costs
Parties: Lawson Stein (Plaintiff)
Victor Board (First Defendant)
Geraldine Stuart (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Bridgett (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
RJI Legal (Plaintiff)
Morabito Legal (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2019/383557
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

These proceedings were commenced by Summons filed on 5 December 2019. The plaintiff sought urgent interlocutory orders for the extension of the operation of two caveats lodged over certain lands owned by the defendants at Webbs Creek, NSW (“the land”), pursuant to s 74K of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). The Summons sought final relief including declarations that the plaintiff had an equitable interest in the land, an exclusive right as tenant to occupy the land, and a life estate, as well as an order restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the land.
On that day, Pembroke J made orders by consent extending the operation of the caveats. On 4 February 2020, the proceedings were ordered to continue on pleadings. The plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim on 22 April 2020, and a defence was filed on 12 June 2020.
On 21 August 2020, the Court was informed that the proceedings had settled save as to costs. Directions were made for the parties to provide brief written submissions with a view to that matter being determined on the papers. The plaintiff provided submissions dated 27 August 2020, supported by a number of documents that were attached. The plaintiff also relied upon parts of the various affidavits that had been filed prior to the settlement of the proceedings. The defendants provided submissions dated 10 September 2020, supported by an affidavit of the defendants’ solicitor, Mr Morabito. The plaintiff provided a further submission in reply dated 25 September 2020.
The proceedings concern a partly oral, partly written tenancy agreement entered into between the defendants as landlords and the plaintiff as tenant on 1 July 1999. Pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff was permitted to reside on the defendants’ land…

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 Stein v Board

Details

AGLC: Stein v Board [2020] NSWSC 1358
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1358
Decision Date: 06 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stein v Board involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Stein, and the defendant, the Board, concerning a matter of significant legal importance. The nature of the dispute centred around the interpretation and application of certain statutory provisions and their implications for the parties involved. The case was heard in a court of general jurisdiction in Australia, which provided the appropriate forum for resolving the complex legal issues at hand.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were primarily focused on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the application of those provisions to the specific facts of the case. Additionally, the court needed to consider the conduct of both parties in relation to the litigation, including whether either party's actions were unreasonable, and to determine the appropriate allocation of costs given that the proceedings were settled save as to costs.

The court's reasoning and outcome involved a careful analysis of the statutory provisions in question, taking into account the relevant legislative context and any relevant case law. The court found that neither party's conduct in relation to the litigation was unreasonable and that the interpretation of the statutory provisions was not straightforward, necessitating a detailed examination of the evidence and arguments presented. Given that the proceedings were settled save as to costs, and considering that neither party's conduct was unreasonable, the court concluded that it was appropriate for each party to bear its own costs of the proceedings. This decision reflected the court's view that the allocation of costs should be based on the conduct of the parties and the nature of the dispute, rather than penalising either party for the outcome of the settlement.

Orders