Blecher v Zou (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 224

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Blecher v Zou (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 224 Hearing dates: On the papers (last submissions 22 February 2024) Date of orders: 07 March 2024 Decision date: 07 March 2024 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Pike J Decision: Defendants are to pay 85% of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, as assessed or agreed. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – costs – whether it was appropriate to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court – whether it was necessary to seek declaratory relief – whether successful plaintiff is entitled to costs where the amount in issue did not exceed $500,000 Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Blecher v Zou [2024] NSWSC 70 Bushby v Dixon Holmes du Pont Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 111 Wong v Maroubra Automotive Refinishers Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 364 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Costs Parties: Yula Blecher (Plaintiff) Chen Qing Zou (First Defendant) (Self-Represented) Jing Shen (Second Defendant) (Self-Represented) Representation: Counsel: Mr Nicholas Allan (Plaintiff) Self-represented (Defendants)

Solicitors: Ziman and Ziman Solicitors (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2023/00055040 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. On 8 February 2024, I delivered judgment in these proceedings: see Blecher v Zou [2024] NSWSC 70 (Principal Judgment). These reasons assume familiarity with the Principal Judgment, and I continue the defined terms used in the Principal Judgment. 2. The primary relief ordered was: 1. The Court declares that of the funds held in escrow by Laing & Simmons Double Bay in respect of the sale of 26 Myuna Road, Dover Heights on or about 10 August 2022, the Plaintiff is entitled to $99,692 and the Defendants are entitled to $308. 2. The Court orders the parties to notify Laing & Simmons Double Bay to release the funds in accordance with the declaration set out at Paragraph 1 above. 3. The Court orders the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff pre-judgment interest in the sum of $9,553.94. 1. It was not in dispute at the hearing before me that the proceedings concerned entitlements to the sum of $100,000 held in a trust account and that, in reality, the maximum amount in dispute was $45,291.46 (see [5] of the Principal Judgment). The ultimate outcome was that the plaintiff was entitled to $99,692 (plus interest) and the defendants entitled to $308. 2. At [102] of the Principal Judgment, I indicated that I proposed to give the parties an opportunity to be heard briefly in writing on the question of costs and would otherwise deal with the issue on the papers. This included whether any costs should be allowed having regard to UCPR r 42.34. 3. These reasons deal with the question of costs. 4. Pursuant to orders made in the Principal Judgment, the plaintiff relied on submissions as to costs dated 15 February 2024 and an affidavit of Derek Errol Ziman dated 7 February 2024 (Ziman Affidavit). That affidavit set out the relevant correspondence and communications in relation to attempted settlement of the proceedings and annexed certain offers. The defendants relied on submissions filed 22 February 2024.