Junxing Ge v Jinjin Sun [2020] NSWSC 333

Junxing Ge v Jinjin Sun [2020] NSWSC 333

The Court made no order as to costs because the material did not make it manifest that the defendant acted unreasonably in lodging or maintaining the caveat, the caveat arose in the context of genuine family law property proceedings, the defendant's solicitor was not shown to have known of the sale contract before 13 March 2020, the plaintiff commenced the proceeding without responding substantively to the defendant's proposal, and the defendant acted reasonably in consenting to withdraw the caveat to avoid protracted proceedings and jeopardy to the property transactions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Duty List Proceeding Concerning a Claimed Equitable Interest in Land, Withdrawal of a Caveat, and Costs / Costs Determination After the Parties Consented to Orders Otherwise Disposing of the Proceedings
Outcome
No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'party/party Costs' 'caveat Over Torrens Title Land' 'equitable Interest in Property' 'settlement Without Hearing on the Merits']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'real Property' 'costs'] ['costs Discretion' 'party/party Costs' 'caveat Over Torrens Title Land' 'equitable Interest in Property' 'settlement Without Hearing on the Merits']

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 Duty List Proceeding Concerning a Claimed Equitable Interest in Land, Withdrawal of a Caveat, and Costs / Costs Determination After the Parties Consented to Orders Otherwise Disposing of the Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis after consenting to orders withdrawing the caveat and disclaiming any equitable interest except for the agreed payment." 'Whether, in proceedings settled without a hearing on the merits, the parties acted reasonably so that no order as to costs should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made no order as to costs because the material did not make it manifest that the defendant acted unreasonably in lodging or maintaining the caveat, the caveat arose in the context of genuine family law property proceedings, the defendant's solicitor was not shown to have known of the sale contract before 13 March 2020, the plaintiff commenced the proceeding without responding substantively to the defendant's proposal, and the defendant acted reasonably in consenting to withdraw the caveat to avoid protracted proceedings and jeopardy to the property transactions.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The Court makes no order as to costs, with the intent that each party will bear their own costs of the proceedings.' "By consent, the Court noted the parties' agreement that the plaintiff would pay the defendant $2,365.80." 'By consent, the Court declared that, save for that agreement, the defendant has no...