Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zheng v Wallace (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 43 Hearing dates: Plaintiff's submissions – 28.01.15 Decision date: 10 February 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Price J Decision: (1) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs. (2) The defendant is to pay the costs of fund management in the sum of $84,560.00. Catchwords: COSTS – cost of fund management fees – legal costs Cases Cited: Zheng v Wallace [2015] NSWSC 3 Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40; (2014) 313 ALR 579 Category: Costs Parties: Yin Fan Zheng (Plaintiff) Peter Townsend Wallace (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr CT Barry QC with Mr J Davidson (Plaintiff) Mr KP Rewell SC (Defendant) Solicitors: Slater & Gordon Lawyers (Plaintiff) McInnes Wilson Lawyers NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2012/378325 Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: On 21 January 2015, a verdict and judgment was found for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $606,473.60. Directions were made as to written submissions on fund management fees and costs: Zheng v Wallace [2015] NSWSC 3. 2. On 28 January 2015, the plaintiff submitted (MFI 3) that: 1. the appropriate amount for the cost of fund management is $84,560.00 as set out in an attached report of Mariano Rossetto, a forensic accountant; and 2. she is entitled to costs on the usual basis. 1. The defendant's solicitors advised by an email dated 6 February 2015 that the defendant did not intend to make any submission (MFI 4). Accordingly, the defendant has not contended that the court should depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event. Furthermore, there is no criticism of Mariano Rossetto's assessment of the total present value cost of funds management. It appears to me that this assessment is made in accordance with the principles in Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40; (2014) 313 ALR 579 and is reasonable. 2. I make the following further orders: 1. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs. 2. The defendant is to pay the costs of fund management in the sum of $84,560.00. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 11 February 2015