Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ye v Chen (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 630 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 20 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: (1) Subject to orders (2) and (3) below, order the plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings, such costs to be paid on the ordinary basis.
(2) Confirm that order (1) above does not affect the orders for costs made by Harrison AsJ on 31 August 2021 and 6 October 2021 in Ye v Chen (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1265.
(3) Each party pay her or its (as the case may be) own costs of this application.
Catchwords: COSTS — Party/Party — Exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event — Offers of compromise — whether to follow UCPR r 42.15A to order indemnity costs or order otherwise — where circumstances such that court ought to order otherwise — where costs awarded on an ordinary basis only
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), rr 20.26, 42.15A
Cases Cited: Category: Costs Parties: Rebecca Haria Ye (First Plaintiff)
Ucer Investment and Resources Management Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Yu Chen (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Cheema (Plaintiffs)
J Harrison (Defendant)
Auburn Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Prudentia Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2021/6370 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Local Court
- Date of Decision:
- 11 December 2020
- Before:
- Stapleton LCM
- File Number(s):
- 2018/215879
Judgment
Introduction
-
On 27 April 2022, I made orders and gave reasons in this matter: Ye v Chen [2022] NSWSC 494. I made a default costs order (that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings in this Court) and made provision for any party who sought a different order to make an application within seven days.
-
Within the requisite time, the defendant, Yu Chen, applied for an order that the plaintiffs, Rebecca Ye and Ucer Investment and Resources Management Pty Ltd (Ucer), pay her costs on the ordinary basis up to and including 5 February 2021 and on an indemnity basis thereafter.
-
They relied on an offer of compromise which they served on 5 February 2021, which was expressed to be made pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), r 20.26 in which they offered to compromise the proceedings on the basis of orders that the proceedings be dismissed and that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings assessed on the ordinary basis. The offer was expressed to be open for 28 days.
-
The plaintiffs did not dispute that the offer was made in accordance with UCPR, r 20.26 or that the effect of UCPR r 42.15A(2) was that, unless the Court ordered otherwise, the defendant was entitled to her costs on the ordinary basis until the date of the offer and on the indemnity basis thereafter. However, they submitted that the Court should order otherwise because there was no element of real compromise in the defendant’s offer.
-
They submitted that the offer was made on 5 February 2021, a mere four weeks after the summons was filed on 8 January 2021 and barely a week after the defendant had filed a notice of appearance. They contended that the offer, in effect, required the plaintiffs to capitulate completely on their claim and to bear the defendant’s costs of the proceedings.
-
In response, the defendant submitted that this Court ought not order otherwise because:
Ms Ye’s conduct (on her own account and on behalf of Ucer) was dishonest and, as the Court below found, delinquent;
there was no reason to depart from the effect of UCPR r 42.15A; and
every ground of appeal was rejected by this Court and leave was refused in respect of two issues.
-
While Ms Ye’s conduct in the Court below was found to be delinquent and this finding was not disturbed by this Court, I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to order the plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis on any footing other than on the basis of the offer of compromise. Although the matters raised by Mr Cheema did not result in relief being granted to the plaintiffs, the proceedings in this Court were conducted expeditiously with appropriate focus on the issues raised by the summons.
-
I accept the plaintiffs’ contention that the offer of compromise contained no real element of compromise and that, accordingly, I should make an order other than the one provided for under UPCR, r 42.15A(2). In these circumstances, the costs of the proceedings will follow the event but be payable only on the ordinary basis.
-
The plaintiffs have sought an order that the defendant pay their costs of the costs application. Although the plaintiffs have been successful in defeating the defendant’s claim for indemnity costs, I consider that there ought be a departure from the general rule in the present case as the costs incurred in the application can be expected to be relatively minor when compared with the costs of the proceedings. I consider it to be appropriate, in all the circumstances, to order that each party pay her or its (as the case may be) own costs of the costs application.
-
For the reasons set out above, I make the following orders:
Subject to orders (2) and (3) below, order the plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings, such costs to be paid on the ordinary basis.
Confirm that order (1) above does not affect the orders for costs made by Harrison AsJ on 31 August 2021 and 6 October 2021 in Ye v Chen (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1265.
Each party pay her or its (as the case may be) own costs of this application.
**********
- AGLC
- Ye v Chen (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 630
- Case
- [2022] NSWSC 630
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether to follow the general rule outlined in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR) that costs follow the event, or whether there were circumstances that justified ordering indemnity costs or otherwise. Specifically, the court had to decide if the offer of compromise made by the defendant under UCPR rule 42.15A warranted an order for indemnity costs or if the ordinary costs should be awarded.
The court considered the circumstances surrounding the offer of compromise and the conduct of both parties during the litigation. It was determined that the circumstances did not warrant an order for indemnity costs, and the court found that ordering costs on the ordinary basis was appropriate. The court reasoned that while the defendant's offer of compromise was not accepted, there were factors that suggested a deviation from the general rule was not necessary. These factors included the nature of the offer, the timing of the offer, and the conduct of both parties throughout the proceedings.
The final orders of the court were that costs were to be awarded on the ordinary basis only, reflecting the court's conclusion that the circumstances did not justify an order for indemnity costs. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate costs order.
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.