Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva & Ors (No. 2) [2019] NSWDC 498

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva & Ors (No. 2) [2019] NSWDC 498 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 13 September 2019 Decision date: 13 September 2019 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 36 Catchwords: COSTS – Calderbank letter – whether offeror obtained a better result than the terms offered – where offer was made jointly by a party later that was removed from the proceedings – where offer was made in conjunction with other offers relating to different disputes – whether the terms represented a genuine offer of settlement – whether rejection of the offer was unreasonable. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Commonwealth v Gretton [2008] NSWCA 117 Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 Category: Costs Parties: Mr Khabiya (Plaintiff) Mr Sachdeva (First Defendant) Ms Sachdeva (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr C Carter (Plaintiff) Mr J Mack (First and Third Defendant)

Solicitors: Vaikom Rajeev (Plaintiff) MST Lawyers (First and Third Defendant) File Number(s): 2016/257216 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Background 1. I delivered reasons for judgment in this matter on 22 August 2019 [1] . Essentially, I found that: 1. the plaintiff made out his case of breach of contract against the second defendant and was entitled to an order for damages arising from such breach for the sum of $92,000; 2. the plaintiff failed in all his claims against the first defendant (and his statutory claim against the second defendant); 3. no further order was made against the third defendant after I had struck out the claim against it, during the trial, on account of its de-registration (the circumstance of which had only become apparent during the trial). 1. I directed the parties to confer on the final orders that should be made. By way of assistance, I indicated that short minutes should make provision for pre-judgment interest and costs [2] . 2. I also directed the first defendant, the brother-in-law of the second defendant (and 'Official Global Representative' of the business or trading name under which she goes by) to notify her of the reasons for judgement, so that she would also have the opportunity to make submissions as to appropriate orders following my reasons. This direction followed the second defendant's absence during the hearing [3] . I am satisfied that the first defendant has complied with that direction [4] and that the second defendant has had the opportunity to submit as to final orders. This is so, notwithstanding the second defendant's omission to respond to the communication she received from the first defendant. In the events that have occurred, I find that the Second Defendant has made no submission as to the final orders, despite having the opportunity to do so. 3. This meant that, as ultimately occurred during the trial, the real contest as to the final dispositive orders was only between the plaintiff and the first defendant.