Carmela Ruoso v Thi Ngoc Hoa Hoang & Anor [2015] NSWLEC 1551

Carmela Ruoso v Thi Ngoc Hoa Hoang & Anor [2015] NSWLEC 1551

The Notice of Motion and supporting affidavit were served on the respondents' solicitors, the respondents did not appear, the applicant obtained three quotes and the cheapest quote covered the work required by Acting Commissioner Galwey's earlier orders, which required payment of the cheapest quote plus $242. It was therefore appropriate to quantify the amount payable as $7,242. Because the earlier payment order had already been made and no correspondence had been received from the respondents regarding payment, the applicant was put to the cost of bringing the Notice of Motion, so the respondents should pay those costs as agreed or assessed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 2 Application Under Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006; Notice of Motion for Consequential Orders / Notice of Motion Filed 19 March 2015 Seeking Quantification of Amount Payable Under Earlier Orders and Costs
Outcome
Notice of Motion granted in part; payment and costs of the Notice of Motion ordered; costs of the substantive proceedings stood over.
Legal Topics
['consequential Orders' 'quantification of Amount Payable Under Earlier Orders' 'costs' 'substituted Service' 'non Appearance']
['land and Environment' 'trees Disputes Between Neighbours' 'civil Procedure'] ['consequential Orders' 'quantification of Amount Payable Under Earlier Orders' 'costs' 'substituted Service' 'non Appearance']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 2 Application Under Part 2 of the Trees (disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006; Notice of Motion for Consequential Orders / Notice of Motion Filed 19 March 2015 Seeking Quantification of Amount Payable Under Earlier Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should order the respondents to pay the applicant $7,242, being the cheapest quote for paving works plus $242 ordered for concrete removal completed to date.' "Whether the respondents should pay the applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion." 'Whether the question of costs of the substantive proceedings should be stood over because evidence and submissions were not ready.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion and supporting affidavit were served on the respondents' solicitors, the respondents did not appear, the applicant obtained three quotes and the cheapest quote covered the work required by Acting Commissioner Galwey's earlier orders, which required payment of the cheapest quote plus $242. It was therefore appropriate to quantify the amount payable as $7,242. Because the earlier payment order had already been made and no correspondence had been received from the respondents regarding payment, the applicant was put to the cost of bringing the Notice of Motion, so the respondents should pay those costs as agreed or assessed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion granted in part; payment and costs of the Notice of Motion ordered; costs of the substantive proceedings stood over.

Orders

  • ['That the respondents pay the applicant the sum of $7,242;' "That the respondents pay the applicant the costs of the Notice of Motion filed 19 March 2015 up to today's date, as agreed or assessed;" 'The applicant to file and serve any evidence in support of prayer 3 of the Notice of Motion by 24 April 2015;' 'The...