Tutoveanu v Velez (No 3) - [2025] NSWSC 651

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tutoveanu v Velez (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 651
Hearing dates: On the papers – submissions 13, 20 June 2025
Date of orders: 23 June 2025
Decision date: 23 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Plaintiff to pay defendants’ costs assessed as $2,310 (GST inc)

Catchwords:
COSTS — Party/Party — Bases of quantification — Assessed as a gross sum — No issue of principle

Cases Cited:
Tutoveanu v Velez [2025] NSWSC 359
Tutoveanu v Velez (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 594

Category: Costs
Parties: Anton Tutoveanu (Plaintiff )
Luc Velez (First Defendant)
The Greens NSW (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Plaintiff (self-represented)

Counsel: P Santucci (First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors: Ripple Legal (First and Second Defendants)

File Number(s): 2025/134122
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

By its judgment delivered on 10 June 2025 in these proceedings, the Court dismissed a notice of motion dated 10 April 2025 and filed by the plaintiff (Mr Tutoveanu) (Tutoveanu v Velez (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 594). The notice of motion sought orders including that the Court set aside its original judgment in these proceedings (which also included a gross sum costs order against Mr Tutoveanu): Tutoveanu v Velez [2025] NSWSC 359. These reasons should be read, and assume familiarity with, the Court’s two earlier judgments.
Upon dismissing the notice of motion, the Court made directions for the exchange of submissions if the first defendant (Mr Velez) and the second defendant (The Greens NSW) wished to seek their costs of the notice of motion. The Court also directed that the question of costs of the notice of motion would be dealt with on the papers.
The defendants’ solicitors provided their clients’ submissions as to costs in accordance with the Court’s directions on 13 June 2025. Those submissions attached the relevant invoices from both the solicitors and counsel.
On 20 June 2025 (the day on which his cost submissions were due), Mr Tutoveanu emailed my Associate saying: “The plaintiff does not provide submissions on the defendants costs”.
The defendants seek an order for their costs of the notice of motion, assessed in the gross sum of $2,475. That figure compromises solicitor’s costs of $1,650 and counsel’s fees of $825. All amounts in this judgment are GST inclusive.
While the Court ultimately did not require written submissions on the notice of motion from the defendants, the Court accepts that it was appropriate and reasonable for the defendants to retain solicitors and counsel in relation to the notice of motion, to provide preliminary advice and to brief counsel to appear at the first return date of the notice of motion.
The notice of motion was dismissed. There is no reason why the usual order should not apply such that costs should follow the event. Mr Tutoveanu will be ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of the notice of motion.
The Court is also satisfied that this is an appropriate case for costs to be assessed…

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 Tutoveanu v Velez (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Tutoveanu v Velez (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 651
Case: [2025] NSWSC 651
Decision Date: 23 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tutoveanu v Velez, the parties were engaged in a legal dispute that reached the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the conflict was centred on the assessment of costs associated with the legal proceedings. The court was required to determine the appropriate method for calculating the costs incurred by the plaintiff, Tutoveanu, in pursuing the case against Velez. This determination involved scrutiny of the bases on which the costs were quantified and whether the method applied was in line with established legal principles.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs awarded to the plaintiff should be assessed as a gross sum or if there was an underlying principle that necessitated a different approach. The court needed to consider whether the methodology applied by the lower court in quantifying the costs was appropriate and whether it complied with the rules governing the assessment of legal costs in Australia. The court's task was to ensure that the costs awarded were fair and reasonable, reflecting the actual expenses incurred and the complexity of the case.

The Supreme Court found that the costs awarded were properly assessed as a gross sum, and there was no fundamental issue of principle that required reconsideration. The court held that the method used by the lower court was appropriate, and the quantum of the costs was justified by the circumstances of the case. The reasoning of the court was based on a comprehensive review of the evidence and the established legal framework for cost assessment. The court concluded that the costs awarded were neither excessive nor inadequate, and thus no further adjustment was necessary. This decision affirmed the lower court's approach and provided clarity on the application of cost assessment principles in similar cases.

Orders