VELLA v. MINEO [2006] NSWSC 233

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : VELLA v. MINEO [2006] NSWSC 233

HEARING DATE(S) : Thursday 2 June 2005; Friday 3 June 2005; Monday 20 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 4 April 2006

JURISDICTION : Equity

JUDGMENT OF : Hall J at 1

DECISION : See paragraph 20

CATCHWORDS : Costs on summons and statement of claim where plaintiff failed to establish constructive or resulting trust - awarded 50% to the defendant/cross-claimant who failed to establish financial contributions alleged by her - costs of cross-claim under Property Relationships Act - awarded 80% to defendant/cross-claimant on the basis of substantive but not complete success.

LEGISLATION CITED : Property Relationships Act 1984 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Fexuto Pty. Limited v. Bosnjak Holdings Pty. Limited (No. 3) (1998) ACSR 20 CASES CITED : Rosniak v. GIO (1997) 41 NSWLR 608 NRMA Limited v. Morgan [1999] NSWSC 768

PARTIES : VELLA, Caterina Gabrielle, as Tutor for LEONARDI, Rosario v. MINEO, Lucia

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC No. 2700 of 2003

COUNSEL : P: M. Gilmour D: J. Stoljar/W. Dawson

SOLICITORS : P: L.P. Alidenes & Co. D: Browns, The Family Lawyers

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

HALL, J.

TUESDAY 4 APRIL 2006

No. 2700 of 2003

CATERINA GABRIELLE VELLA, as Tutor for ROSARIO LEONARDI v. LUCIA MINEO JUDGMENT (On application for costs) 1 HIS HONOUR: Judgment was delivered on 25 November 2005. Pursuant to paragraph [188], the parties made written and oral submissions in relation to the form of orders to give effect to those proposed in the judgment, in particular, in relation to the cross-claim made pursuant to the Property Relationships Act 1984. 2 Both the written submissions on behalf of the plaintiff dated 17 December 2006 and those on behalf of the defendant/cross-claimant dated 17 February 2006 addressed the question of the form of orders and attached proposed orders for consideration. On 20 February 2006 in oral submissions, the parties were granted time in which to consider whether or not agreement could be reached on the form orders, other than those as to costs. 3 In an email dated 22 February 2006 addressed to my associate, Mr. Stoljar of counsel advised that the defendant/cross-claimant would consent to orders substantially in terms of orders 1 to 11 and order 15 in the proposed form or orders drafted by Ms. Gilmour of counsel, subject, (a) to specified amendments thereto to be made by consent to proposed orders 6(ii), 6(iii) and 6(iv) and, (b) certain other additions as proposed on behalf of the defendant/cross-claimant. 4 In relation to the orders referred to in [3] above set out below (at [20]), I note:-