QUIJIAO LIU & ANOR v YUQING XIAO & ORS [2020] NSWSC 1345

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: QUIJIAO LIU & ANOR v YUQING XIAO & ORS [2020] NSWSC 1345 Hearing dates: 12 August 2020 Decision date: 02 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity - Expedition List Before: Sackar J Decision: See para 17 Catchwords: COSTS — Party/Party — Exercise of discretion — Whether discrete and separable issues justifying departure from order that costs follow event Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) 42.1 Cases Cited: Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (Colgate-Palmolive) (1993) 46 FCR 225 Mendonca v Tonna [2020] NSWCA 196 Texts Cited: n/a Category: Costs Parties: Qiujiao Liu (first plaintiff) Rongda Ji (second plaintiff) Ming Chen (third plaintiff) Yuqing Xiao (first defendant) Xin Zhou (second defendant) Fujian Xingxing Restaurants Pty Ltd (ACN 6618 093 020) (third defendant) Zhen Chi Chen (fourth defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr Garry McGrath SC (plaintiffs) Ms Elizabeth Cohen (defendants)

Solicitors: GEA Lawyers (plaintiffs) Ren Zhou Lawyers (defendants) File Number(s): 2019/149621

Judgment 1. I gave judgment in this matter on 25 March 2020 ([2020] NSWSC 289). The proceedings concerned the business arrangements entered into between the first plaintiff and the first defendant in both Australia and China. 2. The first plaintiff claimed to have entered an arrangement whereby it was alleged that the first defendant owed certain monies and was also obliged to facilitate the transfer of certain shares in the third defendant to the second and third plaintiffs. 3. In the result although successful I decided that the first plaintiff was only entitled to repayment of $114,268.03 as opposed to the amount she claimed namely, $1,156,909 (although this amount was revised down to $531,054.41 in the final orders sought), although that amount would not carry interest. 4. I was however satisfied certain shares should be transferred as agreed. There was left outstanding a question of dividends which may be owing (if any) to the plaintiffs. 5. For reasons it is unnecessary to record, the matter did not come back before the court until 27 July 2020. Certain orders were then made but for the question of costs. 6. The parties thereafter made submissions in writing on the question of costs. 7. The plaintiffs submit that they should have their costs up to the date of judgment as agreed or assessed. They submit that they have substantially succeeded and the usual rule of costs following the event should be the appropriate order. 8. The plaintiffs also point to the fact that they were wholly successful on obtaining an account on the dividends issue. Various of the plaintiffs were also successful on the question of their entitlement to certain shareholdings. 9. The defendants on the other hand submit that very little was in effect in dispute at the trial. The issues were what was owed to the first plaintiff, whether interest was payable, and if so, at what rate and when it was payable from. 10. The defendants contend that they were largely successful on the debt issue as the plaintiffs only succeeded in proving a small percentage of what they alleged was owing and were not successful in satisfying the court any interest was payable.