Alfarsi t/as YOF Global Investment v Time Spices Pty Ltd (No.2) [2024] NSWDC 322

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alfarsi t/as YOF Global Investment v Time Spices Pty Ltd (No.2) [2024] NSWDC 322 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 5 August 2024 Decision date: 05 August 2024 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph [67] Catchwords: COSTS – application for partial order for indemnity costs – successful party's reliance upon Calderbank offers and a rules offer Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 100 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 20.26, 42.14 Cases Cited: Alfarsi t/as YOF Global Investment v Time Spices Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 302 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Costs Parties: Yasir Omar N Alfarsi trading as YOF Global Investment (Plaintiff) Time Spices Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms J Mee (Plaintiff) Mr C Dobbs (Defendant)

Solicitors: LawBridge Lawyers & Consultants (Plaintiff) KOR Legal (Defendant) File Number(s): 2022/00254229 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. On 19 July 2024, after a hearing that occurred between 9 and 12 July 2024, I published reasons for my decision that a monetary judgment be ordered for the plaintiff ('YOF') against the defendant ('Time Spices') in the sum of $587,295.39 as well as for ordering Time Spices to pay pre-judgment interest under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) [1] . Costs were reserved pending the parties being given the opportunity to furnish evidence and written submissions directed to that matter. 2. Generally, the case concerned a dispute about the proper characterisation of a commercial arrangement for the supply of dates imported from Saudi Arabia in April and May 2020 and, in particular, whether it was by a contract for sale (as YOF contended) or by way of consignment (as Time Spices contended). Ultimately, I favoured YOF's contention and found in its favour on its primary action in debt. I also found, however, that on the contingency that the arrangement was one of consignment, this did not affect the result since YOF would have achieved the same result in its alternative action for damages as it did for securing the monetary judgment on the basis of its claim in debt. 3. Time Spices also brought a cross-claim in which, relevantly, it asserted certain discrete actions in restitution. That cross-claim (which was modest in value) was dismissed [2] . 4. YOF, as the successful party, not only seeks its costs under the general rule (in r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)) ('UCPR'), but also seeks an order for those costs to be partially paid on an indemnity basis from certain (alternative) dates, relevantly from 18 September 2023, 21 November 2023 or 8 June 2024. 5. Time Spices does not dispute, in principle, that the general rule is engaged (although it apparently seeks an express qualification to the operation of that rule on account of its having received certain costs orders from interlocutory disputes), but it contests YOF's application for a partial indemnity costs order.