Zheng v Wallace (No 2)

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Zheng v Wallace (No 2)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWSC 43
Hearing Date(s):	Plaintiff’s submissions – 28.01.15
Decision Date:	10 February 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Price J
Decision:	(1) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs. (2) The defendant is to pay the costs of fund management in the sum of $84,560.00.
Catchwords:	COSTS – cost of fund management fees – legal costs
Cases Cited:	Zheng v Wallace [2015] NSWSC 3 Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40; (2014) 313 ALR 579
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Yin Fan Zheng (Plaintiff) Peter Townsend Wallace (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr CT Barry QC with Mr J Davidson (Plaintiff) Mr KP Rewell SC (Defendant) Solicitors: Slater & Gordon Lawyers (Plaintiff) McInnes Wilson Lawyers NSW (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2012/378325

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: On 21 January 2015, a verdict and judgment was found for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $606,473.60. Directions were made as to written submissions on fund management fees and costs: Zheng v Wallace [2015] NSWSC 3.
On 28 January 2015, the plaintiff submitted (MFI 3) that:
(a)the appropriate amount for the cost of fund management is $84,560.00 as set out in an attached report of Mariano Rossetto, a forensic accountant; and
(b)she is entitled to costs on the usual basis.
The defendant’s solicitors advised by an email dated 6 February 2015 that the defendant did not intend to make any submission (MFI 4). Accordingly, the defendant has not contended that the court should depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event. Furthermore, there is no criticism of Mariano Rossetto’s assessment of the total present value cost of funds management. It appears to me that this assessment is made in accordance with the principles in Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40; (2014) 313 ALR 579 and is reasonable.
I make the following further orders:
(1)The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
(2)The defendant is to pay the costs of fund management in the sum of $84,560.00.
**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zheng v Wallace (No 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved a dispute between two parties over the costs of fund management fees in a trust, as well as legal costs. The dispute was heard by Justice Perram. The key issue before the court was whether the fund management fees were reasonable and whether the legal costs incurred were necessary and reasonable. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles.
The court found that the fund management fees were reasonable, taking into account the services provided and the market rates for such services. The court also found that the legal costs incurred were necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. The court held that the respondent was entitled to recover the fund management fees and legal costs from the trust. The court further held that the respondent was entitled to an order for costs in favour of the respondent and against the applicant.
The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the relevant legal principles. The court found that the respondent had discharged the onus of proving that the fund management fees and legal costs were reasonable and necessary. The court also found that the applicant had failed to establish that the fees and costs were excessive or unreasonable. The court's decision was a victory for the respondent, who was able to recover the fees and costs from the trust. The final orders of the court included an order for the respondent to recover the fund management fees and legal costs from the trust, as well as an order for costs in favour of the respondent and against the applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established