Sathiasothilingeswaran Tharmakulaseelarajan v Sivapragasam Shanmugathaas [2019] NSWSC 357

Sathiasothilingeswaran Tharmakulaseelarajan v Sivapragasam Shanmugathaas [2019] NSWSC 357

The defendants received all joint venture proceeds and failed to provide verification sufficient to displace the independent accountant's audit. On the verified figures, after allowing the defendants' verified expenditure and their 10% project management fee calculated on total verified project costs, the plaintiffs were entitled to $88,808 plus pre-judgment interest. The defendants' additional claims failed because they were unsupported by the agreement, not verified, not proved by the evidence, or not properly part of the accounting exercise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Joint Venture Accounting Dispute / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants for $88,808 plus pre-judgment interest; Summons and Cross-Claims otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['joint Venture' 'taking of Accounts Between Joint Venturers' 'development Costs' 'project Management Fee' 'contract Variation' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'costs Following the Event']
['equity' 'commercial Law' 'contract Law' 'costs'] ['joint Venture' 'taking of Accounts Between Joint Venturers' 'development Costs' 'project Management Fee' 'contract Variation' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'costs Following the Event']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List; Joint Venture Accounting Dispute / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What amount was payable to the plaintiffs on the final accounting of the joint venture proceeds.' "Whether the Court should adopt the independent accountant's findings about verified and unverified project expenses." 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the cost of retaining the independent accountant from the defendants.' 'Whether payments made in relation to the drainage easement trespass proceedings were recoverable from the joint venture proceeds.' 'Whether the defendants were entitled to reimbursement for a gas line damage payment.' 'Whether the agreement was varied to require the plaintiffs to pay an amount equivalent to tax payable by the defendants on their entitlement.' "Whether the defendants' 10% project management fee should be calculated by including the value of the land and mortgage interest." 'Whether the defendants were entitled to payments under clause 18, reimbursement of accountant costs, credit for an alleged cash payment, or a further audit of finance charges.' 'What costs order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants received all joint venture proceeds and failed to provide verification sufficient to displace the independent accountant's audit. On the verified figures, after allowing the defendants' verified expenditure and their 10% project management fee calculated on total verified project costs, the plaintiffs were entitled to $88,808 plus pre-judgment interest. The defendants' additional claims failed because they were unsupported by the agreement, not verified, not proved by the evidence, or not properly part of the accounting exercise.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants for $88,808 plus pre-judgment interest; Summons and Cross-Claims otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants for the sum of $88,808.' 'The plaintiffs are entitled to pre-judgment interest on $88,808 at the Court Rate from 5 December 2014.' 'Summons and Cross-Claims otherwise dismissed.' 'The plaintiffs are entitled to two-thirds of their costs, excluding the costs...