He v Hecker (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1698

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: He v Hecker (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1698 Decision date: 19 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison AsJ (in chambers) Decision: In relation costs of this appeal proceedings the Court orders that: (1) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal on an ordinary basis. (2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of these proceedings in the gross fixed sum of $948.15. Catchwords: COSTS - costs of appeal from Local Court - gross fixed sum costs order - whether self-represented litigant may claim compensation for loss of income Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Australian Blue Metal Ltd v Hughes [1970] 2 NSWR 119 Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403; [1994] HCA 14 Filmlock Pty Limitd v Nissi Investments Limited (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1594 He v Hecker [2013] NSWSC 1219 Idoport Pty Limited v National Australia Bank [2007] NSWSC 23 Lawrence v M D Nikolaidis [2003] NSWCA 129 Lowal v Zoccoli (2002) 4 VR 399 Petrunic v Barnes [1989] VR 927 Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Boswell (No 2) (1992) 39 FCR 288 Category: Costs Parties: Ji He (Plaintiff) Allyson Hecker (Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/178500 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1HER HONOUR: This judgment deals with costs arising from an appeal from a Local Court decision. 2On 3 September 2013, I delivered judgment: He v Hecker [2013] NSWSC 1219. The orders I made are as follows: "(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) The decision of Magistrate Bradd dated 22 April 2013 is affirmed. (3) The summons filed 24 June 2013 is dismissed. (4) Costs are reserved." 3The issue of costs has been dealt with by way of written submissions from both parties. On 11 November 2013, my associate received some unsolicited submissions from both Ms He and Ms Hecker. I have read the contents of Ms He's submissions and formed the view that what is contained there does not relate to the costs argument in these proceedings. 4Ms Hecker's recent submissions relate to the costs involved in erecting the dividing fence and the removal of the encroachments on her property. While these do not relate to the costs issues in the Local Court and this Court, later in this judgment I shall refer to them to assist the parties as they relate to the implementation of the Magistrate's orders. 5Both parties seek their costs of the appeal in this Court and their costs of the Local Court proceedings. Both litigants represented themselves in both the Local Court and in this Court.