| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY LIST
S CI 2017 03093
| MARIKA SUTHERLAND (BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN GREGORY JOHN SUTHERLAND) | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| GLOBE REAL ESTATE PTY LTD (ACN 146 187 224) AND OTHERS (according to the schedule attached) | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Derham AsJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 July 2018 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 27 July 2018 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Sutherland v Globe Real Estate Pty Ltd & Ors |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VSC 408 |
---
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Whether successful determination of the plaintiff’s claim on a ground added after the commencement of the proceeding, whilst not proceeding with another ground, is a basis for awarding costs to the defendant for a part of the proceeding or reducing the plaintiff’s costs – Plaintiff’s costs reduced slightly.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interest on judgment sum – Claim by successful plaintiff for an entitlement to be paid interest under the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983 (Vic) – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 58 – Whether ‘good cause to the contrary’ shown for not awarding interest on the statutory basis – Whether holding disputed sum in solicitor’s trust account pursuant to agreement until resolution of the dispute a ‘good cause to the contrary’ – Not good cause – Whether interest rate should be reduced because disputed sum held in solicitor’s trust account and bearing no interest to the parties – Interest rate reduced slightly.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr D P Lloyd | Sophie Gioutlou & Co |
| For the Defendant | Mr C Twidale | Marsh & Maher Richmond Bennison |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1
Background......................................................................................................................................... 1
The proceeding................................................................................................................................... 3
Applicable law.................................................................................................................................. 11
Costs.............................................................................................................................................. 11
Interest.......................................................................................................................................... 14
Defendant’s submissions................................................................................................................ 17
Interest.......................................................................................................................................... 18
Costs.............................................................................................................................................. 19
Plaintiff’s submissions.................................................................................................................... 20
Interest.......................................................................................................................................... 20
Costs.............................................................................................................................................. 21
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 22
Costs.............................................................................................................................................. 22
Interest.......................................................................................................................................... 24
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 28
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
These reasons concern claims by the plaintiff for interest and costs against the defendant in unusual circumstances.
On 4 June 2018 the Court made declarations in favour of the plaintiff by consent. The declarations concerned whether an Exclusive Sale Authority between the plaintiff, as vendor, and the defendant, as agent, complied with requirements set out in the Estate Agents Act 1980 (Vic) (the Act) and whether the defendant was entitled to retain any commission in respect of the sale of the plaintiff’s property at 37 Oak Street Beaumaris (Property). The Property had been sold by the plaintiff, through the agency of the defendant, to Iconic Property Development Australia Pty Ltd by a contract of sale dated 16 February 2017.
The deposit monies had been retained by the solicitors for the defendant pending resolution of a dispute as to the entitlement of the defendant to commission on the sale of the Property. In consequence of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Advisory Services Pty Ltd (t/as Ray White St Albans) v Augustin,[1] which was handed down on 19…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sutherland v Globe Real Estate Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] VSC 408
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the successful determination of the plaintiff's claim on a ground added after the commencement of the proceedings, whilst not proceeding with another ground, could be a basis for awarding costs to the defendant for a part of the proceeding or reducing the plaintiff's costs. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the holding of a disputed sum in the solicitor's trust account pursuant to an agreement until the resolution of the dispute constituted a 'good cause to the contrary' for not awarding interest on the statutory basis. The court was also required to decide if the interest rate should be reduced because the disputed sum was held in a solicitor's trust account and bore no interest to the parties.
The court found that the successful determination of the plaintiff's claim on a ground added after the commencement of the proceedings, whilst not proceeding with another ground, was indeed a basis for awarding costs to the defendant for a part of the proceeding or reducing the plaintiff's costs. However, the plaintiff's costs were only slightly reduced. Furthermore, the court determined that the holding of a disputed sum in the solicitor's trust account pursuant to an agreement until the resolution of the dispute was not a 'good cause to the contrary' for not awarding interest on the statutory basis. The court also found that the interest rate should be slightly reduced because the disputed sum was held in a solicitor's trust account and bore no interest to the parties.
As a result, the court made an order for the plaintiff to pay a reduced amount of costs and for the defendant to be awarded interest on the judgment sum at a slightly reduced rate. The precise details of the costs and interest were outlined in the final orders of the court.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.