Sinopec International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wenwu Su [2019] NSWSC 269

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sinopec International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wenwu Su [2019] NSWSC 269 Hearing dates: 8 March 2019 Decision date: 15 March 2019 Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List Before: Hammerschlag J Decision: Judgment for the plaintiff for $A9,980,425. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis. The judgment is to bear a notation that the costs are not fixed by cl 24 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW) Catchwords: WORDS AND PHRASES – "contested matter"; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 – clause 24 – where regulation fixes costs payable for obtaining judgment in matters which are not contested matters – meaning of term "contested matter"; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment in proceedings commenced by summons; HELD: Judgment for the plaintiff for $A9,980,425 plus costs, which are not fixed under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Texts Cited: Macquarie Dictionary (7th ed, 2017) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Sinopec International (Australia) Pty Ltd - Plaintiff Wenwu Su - Defendant Representation: Counsel: N. Bender - Plaintiff

Solicitors: Allens - Plaintiff File Number(s): 2018/364785

Judgment

Introduction 1. HIS HONOUR: By motion filed on 1 March 2019, the plaintiff moves for judgment against the defendant for $A9,980,425. The plaintiff also seeks costs. The defendant did not appear to defend the application. 2. Neither the application for judgment nor the application for costs is exceptional. 3. However, in relation to costs, there is an issue arising out of clause 24 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015 (NSW) (Regulation) which relevantly provides that: (1) The costs payable in respect of the following: (a) the enforcement of a lump sum debt or liquidated sum for damages, being costs of a legal service specified in Schedule 1, are fixed at the amount specified in that Schedule in respect of that service. … (5) This clause does not fix the costs payable for obtaining a judgment in contested matters and, in that case, only the costs payable for the enforcement of the judgment are fixed. (emphasis added) 1. Schedule 1 contains a tariff of the maximum legal professional costs chargeable for the recovery of certain debts. The Schedule identifies various attendances and assigns to each one an amount chargeable. So far as default judgment is concerned, the only items identified are preparation of process (comprising costs of taking instructions, preparing documents, and filing statement of claim, including drawing/typing/checking of originating process and cheque to pay account of process server), costs of service, substituted service, service interstate or overseas, and costs on applying for default judgment. 2. In the circumstances that have occurred, is the plaintiff obtaining judgment in a contested matter? If the answer is yes, the Regulation will not fix the costs payable to the plaintiff for obtaining judgment.