Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ellestra Pty Ltd v Farmakis [2018] NSWSC 665 Hearing dates: 23 April 2018 Decision date: 14 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Emmett AJA Decision: 1. Order judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $250,000. 2. The defendant pay to the plaintiff pre-judgment interest in the sum of $147,157.33. 3. The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs fixed in the amount of $41,922.60. 4. Those amounts be paid within twenty-eight days. Catchwords: PROCEDURE – judgments and orders – short minutes of order to give effect to reasons – pre-judgment interest awarded COSTS – solicitor/client basis Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Ellestra Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Susan Patricia Farmakis (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: N Avery-Williams (Plaintiff) Solicitors: Redmond Hale Simpson (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2015/00359210 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1. HIS HONOUR: On 8 May 2018, for reasons that I then published, I directed the plaintiff to bring in short minutes of order to reflect the conclusions reached in my reasons. The brief conclusion is that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff in the sum of $250,000. 2. The plaintiff also asks for interest and costs. The interest has been calculated in the sum of $147,157.33, and it is appropriate that the defendant should be ordered to pay pre-judgment interest in that sum. 3. The plaintiff also seeks that costs be ordered in a fixed amount of $41,922.60. In support of that application, the plaintiff relies on two affidavits of Mr David Sutherland, solicitor. In one he gives evidence of offers of compromise made by the plaintiff to the defendant. The offer is essentially the same. One difference is that it was only at the time of the third offer that the defendant was represented by solicitors. Nevertheless, in the circumstances it was clear enough that the plaintiff was offering to accept a significant reduction in the amount claimed against the defendant. 4. The plaintiff therefore seeks that costs be assessed on a solicitor and client basis. Having regard to the evidence contained in the affidavits I consider that is an appropriate course in circumstances where the defendant, although originally represented by solicitors, did not appear at the hearing, and although clearly notified of the hearing today, did not appear today to oppose the making of the orders sought. 5. There is some question as to whether the defendant will be able to meet the judgment, although there is evidence that she owns real property. However, the real property is encumbered. There is no evidence as to whether the defendant has any equity in the property. Again, in the circumstances it is appropriate to avoid the incurring of additional costs in the assessment of costs. Conclusion 1. In all of the circumstances I propose to make orders as follows: 1. Judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $250,000. 2. Order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff pre-judgment interest in the sum of $147,157.33. 3. Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs fixed in the amount of $41,922.60. 4. I direct that those amounts be paid within twenty eight days. ********** Amendments 18 June 2018 - Amend order 1 to read "Order judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $250,000." 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: 18 June 2018