KTD v Indoz Investments Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 158

KTD v Indoz Investments Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 158

The plaintiff, a vulnerable person, was induced into contracts for unnecessary goods without full disclosure of price or terms. Default judgment was entered against the first defendant, and the sum claimed was supported by deductions for settlement and value of goods retained. The Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) empowered the Court to declare the plaintiff's ownership of the goods. Given the first defendant's absence and conduct, indemnity costs on a gross sum basis were also appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Damages Assessment Following Default Judgment; Costs; Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against first defendant for $4,913 plus interest and costs; declaration of title to goods.
Legal Topics
['contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'default Judgment' 'damages Assessment' 'indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs' 'power to Declare Ownership of Goods']
['contract' 'consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'default Judgment' 'damages Assessment' 'indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs' 'power to Declare Ownership of Goods']

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

Civil / Damages Assessment Following Default Judgment; Costs; Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether plaintiff entitled to damages for breach of contract' 'Whether the Court can grant a declaration of title to property under s 8 Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)' 'Assessment of damages and costs in default judgment' 'Whether gross sum indemnity costs order should be made']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, a vulnerable person, was induced into contracts for unnecessary goods without full disclosure of price or terms. Default judgment was entered against the first defendant, and the sum claimed was supported by deductions for settlement and value of goods retained. The Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) empowered the Court to declare the plaintiff's ownership of the goods. Given the first defendant's absence and conduct, indemnity costs on a gross sum basis were also appropriate.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against first defendant for $4,913 plus interest and costs; declaration of title to goods.

Orders

  • ['Note the first defendant was called outside three times at 9:53am – No appearance.' 'Note the first defendant was called outside three times at 10:40am – No appearance.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $4,913, plus costs in a gross sum $3,577 plus pre-judgment interest $203, totalling...