Simon Ho v Daniel Lau and Anor [2017] NSWSC 1761

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Simon Ho v Daniel Lau and Anor [2017] NSWSC 1761 Hearing dates: 29, 30 November 2017 Decision date: 08 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Equity - Expedition List Before: Sackar J Decision: See para [17] – [18] Category: Costs Parties: Simon Ho (Plaintiff) Daniel Chi Chung Lau (first Defendant) Lilian Lim (second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D Allen (Plaintiff) L Ang (Defendants)

Solicitors: Proctor Phair (Plaintiff) M G L Lawyers (Defendants) File Number(s): 2017/196082

Judgment 1. These proceedings were fixed to be heard before me on 6 and 7 November 2017 but had to be vacated for a number of weeks due to a catastrophic flood that occurred in the court building. 2. The matter was fixed to proceed before me again on 29 and 30 November however after some dialogue with the parties and much negotiation between them the matter resolved but for two issues. I made orders accordingly on that day. 3. The two unresolved issues were the amount the Plaintiff alleges is owed pursuant to an invoice which is disputed by the Defendants, and the costs of the proceedings. 4. The amount said to be owing pursuant to the invoice was not pressed in the proceedings. The Plaintiff withdrew its case in that regard and may or may not sue in the Local Court for some $5,000 in relation to the invoice. 5. In order to save time and expense I invited the parties to consider making submissions on costs in writing and indicated I would determine that issue on the papers. 6. I received written materials from both sides, however the Plaintiff objected to some materials the Defendants seek to rely upon. As a result I was asked to relist the matter today for argument. 7. Before coming to the objectionable material I should briefly record the respective parties' submissions. The Plaintiff submits he succeeded in the proceedings in obtaining an order for specific performance and a monetary judgment. It is further submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that he acted reasonably in seeking the assistance of the Court. Further it is asserted the Defendants had repudiated the joint venture agreement by installing a kitchen on the first floor of their residence. 8. In addition it is submitted the Defendants' conduct post commencement of the litigation was unreasonable in that the Defendants ought to have acceded to an order for specific performance. Instead, it is submitted, they unreasonably delayed proceedings by taking a number of procedural points. It is also submitted Mr Ho made a reasonable offer for compromise and that the matter should have been resolved on that basis. Finally it is submitted the counter offer made by the Defendants was reasonably rejected by Mr Ho. 9. In response, the Defendants submit the Plaintiff's submissions are an "exercise in obfuscation". The Defendants submit that the Plaintiff sought specific performance only so far as they sought orders for the Defendants to remove their non-compliant structure, sign restrictive covenants and pay monies to the Plaintiff. It is further submitted on behalf of the Defendants that the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim did not seek specific performance up to refinance and a winding up of the joint venture. 10. The Defendants further submit in their Cross Claim they sought amongst other things specific performance of the joint venture agreement up until refinance of all the joint venture mortgages and the $174,000 loan, and these were matters of some considerable dispute between the parties. The Defendants submit they made an open offer on 13 September 2017, the substance of which was to invite the Plaintiff to consent to orders for specific performance up until registration of the Strata Plan. 11. The Defendants make further and much more detailed submissions about the chronology of negotiations and discussions between the parties. In turn the Defendants submit that offers of the Defendants were unreasonably rejected by the Plaintiff. 12. The Plaintiff replies in some little detail. The thrust of the submission is to reiterate the unreasonableness on the part of the Defendants in a number of respects. In short the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants in effect have always wanted to litigate matters which were never really in dispute and that in doing so have acted unreasonably. 13. The Plaintiff submits that as they have been unsuccessful they submit the Defendants should be ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the proceedings in addition the Defendants should pay the costs of the subpoena issues which were reserved on 20 October 2017. 14. The Defendants on the other hand accept the presumption that their 21 September 2017 offer is relied upon the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff's costs on an ordinary basis up to the date of the offer. It is however submitted here that there are good reasons why the presumption should be displaced and that the parties should bear their own costs of the Statement of Claim up to 22 September 2017. The Defendants therefore submit that the parties should bear their own costs of the proceedings prior to 22 September 2017 (given both parties had non-compliant structures, both parties had not executed the conveyance correctly and the inconsistent manner in which the money claims were pleaded by the Plaintiff); and the Plaintiff should pay the Defendants costs on an indemnity basis from 22 September 2017. This latter submission is no doubt based on what it is submitted is the unreasonableness of the Plaintiff in rejecting the Defendants' offer of 21 September 2017.