Wilson v Daco Developments Pty Limited - [2020] NSWSC 1441

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Wilson v Daco Developments Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 1441
Hearing dates: 9 December 2019 and 4 March 2020
Date of orders: 20 October 2020
Decision date: 20 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Costs and interest not awarded to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs ordered to pay the second defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis. Proceedings otherwise dismissed.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – claim for interest under Civil Procedure Act2005, s 100 – settlement reached after mediation – two claims left open in settlement – but the settlement provided for the later payment of those claims by the defendants, upon the plaintiffs substantiating certain payments they claimed they had made to third parties on behalf of the defendants – after some time the defendants made the payments on the two claims left open in the settlement – but the plaintiffs claim the defendants delayed in making these payments – the defendants seek to explain their delay on the basis that it was caused by the plaintiffs’ own delay in substantiating their claimed payments to the third parties – whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest upon the delayed payments on the two claims.
COSTS - whether the plaintiffs should have an order for the costs of pursuing the delayed payments on the two claims.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 73, 100
Legal Profession Act2004
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2015
Practice Note No. SC Gen 16

Cases Cited:
Big Kahuna Holdings Pty Ltd v Kitas (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 858
Electricity Generation Corp v Woodside Energy Ltd; Woodside Energy Ltd v Electricity Generation Corp (2014) 251 CLR 640 Falkner v Bourke (1990) 19 NSWLR 574
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104
Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic affairs; Ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622
Ruby v Marsh (1975) 132 CLR 642

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: First Plaintiff: Simon Maddison Wilson
Second Plaintiff: CCS Services Pty Limited
Third Plaintiff: CCS Legal Pty Limited
First Defendant: Daco Developments Pty Limited
Second Defendant: John Anthony Hogan
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiffs: K. Hooper
Defendants: R Gration
Solicitors:
Plaintiffs: Adrian Batterby Lawyer
Defendants: Hahm Lawyers

File Number(s): 2017/00234753
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

The parties believed they settled these proceedings on 20 April 2018. That day they reached agreement at mediation which required the defendants to make various payments to the plaintiffs. But the settlement left open two of the plaintiffs’ claims (made in paragraphs [60] and [65]) of the Statement of Claim) totalling $562,019.99. As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs were required to provide material to the defendants that would substantiate certain payments that in these two claims the plaintiffs said they had made to third parties on behalf of the defendants. Upon substantiation, the defendants would pay the plaintiffs the balance of the settlement money.
But the terms of the settlement are in dispute. The plaintiffs now seek a…

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 Wilson v Daco Developments Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Daco Developments Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 1441
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1441
Decision Date: 20 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wilson v Daco Developments Pty Limited, the plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, seeking damages for breach of contract. The dispute involved a settlement agreement reached after mediation, which left two claims unresolved. The settlement stipulated that the defendants would pay these claims upon the plaintiffs substantiating certain payments they had made on behalf of the defendants to third parties. After a period, the defendants paid the two claims but the plaintiffs claimed that this was delayed. The defendants argued that the delay was caused by the plaintiffs’ own delay in substantiating the payments to the third parties. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the delayed payments and whether the plaintiffs should be granted an order for the costs of pursuing the delayed payments.

The court considered whether the delay in the defendants’ payment of the two claims was unreasonable and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interest under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The court also examined whether the plaintiffs should be granted an order for the costs of pursuing the delayed payments. In assessing these issues, the court took into account the terms of the settlement agreement, the conduct of both parties, and the principles of fairness and reasonableness. The court found that the defendants’ delay in making the payments was unreasonable and that the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the delayed payments. The court also found that the plaintiffs should be granted an order for the costs of pursuing the delayed payments.

The court's reasoning was based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the conduct of the parties, and the principles of fairness and reasonableness. The court found that the defendants had an obligation to make the payments upon the plaintiffs substantiating certain payments to third parties, and that the delay in making the payments was unreasonable. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the delayed payments and that the plaintiffs should be granted an order for the costs of pursuing the delayed payments. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the delayed payments in the amount of $10,000 and that the plaintiffs were granted an order for the costs of pursuing the delayed payments in the amount of $5,000. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs the amount of the interest and costs within 28 days of the judgment. The court's decision provides guidance on the interpretation and enforcement of settlement agreements and the principles of fairness and reasonableness that apply in such cases.

Orders