Wang v Garland Lot 3 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1825

Wang v Garland Lot 3 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1825

Ms Wang was entitled to damages of $113,000 and interest only to 3 May 2013 because the defendants' 3 May 2013 offer was within the threshold in s 100(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and no special circumstances justified later interest. Although commencement in the Supreme Court was warranted when specific performance was sought, continuation after the 14 September 2012 statement of claim was not warranted for a damages claim below $500,000, so UCPR r 42.34 limited Ms Wang's recovery of costs from Garland to costs up to that date. The 26 June 2013 offer of $134,000 was a valid offer of compromise, the judgment obtained was no more favourable to Ms Wang, and the defendants were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs and Interest Determination Following Principal Judgment for Damages for Breach of Contract / Post Judgment Determination of Interest, Costs, Set Off and Stay After Further Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $133,043 inclusive of interest; claims against the second and third defendants dismissed; costs, stay and set off orders made.
Legal Topics
['interest on Damages' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'supreme Court Costs Threshold for Damages Claims' 'set Off of Costs Orders Against Judgment' 'stay of Entry of Judgment']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'contract Law'] ['interest on Damages' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'supreme Court Costs Threshold for Damages Claims' 'set Off of Costs Orders Against Judgment' 'stay of Entry of Judgment']

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

Costs and Interest Determination Following Principal Judgment for Damages for Breach of Contract / Post Judgment Determination of Interest, Costs, Set Off and Stay After Further Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['The amount of interest that should be added to the amount of damages.' "The costs order that should be made in Ms Wang's claim against Garland." "The costs order that should be made in Ms Wang's claim against the second and third defendants." "Whether the defendants should be allowed to set off any costs orders made in their favour against Ms Wang's judgment against Garland, and whether execution of the judgment should be stayed pending the assessment of any costs orders made in favour of the defendants."]

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Wang was entitled to damages of $113,000 and interest only to 3 May 2013 because the defendants' 3 May 2013 offer was within the threshold in s 100(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and no special circumstances justified later interest. Although commencement in the Supreme Court was warranted when specific performance was sought, continuation after the 14 September 2012 statement of claim was not warranted for a damages claim below $500,000, so UCPR r 42.34 limited Ms Wang's recovery of costs from Garland to costs up to that date. The 26 June 2013 offer of $134,000 was a valid offer of compromise, the judgment obtained was no more favourable to Ms Wang, and the defendants were...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $133,043 inclusive of interest; claims against the second and third defendants dismissed; costs, stay and set off orders made.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for damages of $113,000 plus interest to 3 May 2013 of $20,043, giving a total of $133,043.' "Dismiss the plaintiff's claims against the second and third defendants." "Order the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs up to 14 September 2012 on the...