Gani v Maiolo (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1471

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gani v Maiolo (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1471 Hearing dates: On written submissions Decision date: 27 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Hall J Decision: The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis Catchwords: COSTS - order that costs be costs in the cause Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304 Gani v Maiolo [2011] NSWADT 219 Gani v Maiolo [2012] NSWADTAP 10 Gani v Maiolo [2012] NSWSC 1417 Gani v Maiolo [2013] NSWCA 107 His Eminence Metropolitan Petar, Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church of Australia and New Zealand & Anor v The Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated & Anor (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 142 Category: Consequential orders Parties: Mohammed Nurul Gani (Plaintiff) Raffaele Maiolo (First Defendant) Maria Maiolo (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Kumar (Plaintiff) Ms M Tibbey (First and Second Defendants) Solicitors: Karam Ramrakha (Plaintiff) LC Muriniti & Associates (First and Second Defendants) File Number(s): 2012/214069

Judgment 1The plaintiff, Mohammed Nurul Gani, commenced proceedings by way of summons filed on 10 July 2012. The plaintiff sought to appeal from the decisions of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal ("ADT") made on 14 September 2011 (Gani v Maiolo [2011] NSWADT 219) and the ADT Appeal Panel - Internal made on 5 March 2012 (Gani v Maiolo [2012] NSWADTAP 10). Those decisions related to the plaintiff's claim for relief arising from his eviction from retail premises leased from the defendants. 2On 27 November 2012 I delivered the principal judgment in these proceedings and ordered that the plaintiff's summons be dismissed: Gani v Maiolo [2012] NSWSC 1417. I further ordered that the plaintiff was to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless the plaintiff wished to be heard on the question of costs and lodge written submissions. 3I subsequently received written submissions dated 10 December 2012 from Mr Kumar who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. In those submissions the plaintiff did not dispute the order made in relation to costs, save for the costs of the defendants' Notice of Motion dated 5 September 2012. 4I have also had the benefit of written submissions in reply dated 23 January 2013 from Ms Tibbey who appeared on behalf of the defendants.