MK & JA Roche Pty Ltd & Ors v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWSC 970

MK & JA Roche Pty Ltd & Ors v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWSC 970

Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) focuses on the time when the cause of action arose, and permits interest only from that time until judgment. The relevant cause of action for return of the deposit arose on 31 March 2004 when the Development Contract came to an end by automatic rescission, so Roche was entitled to interest on the deposit only from 31 March 2004. Because Roche did not better its Offer of Compromise, it was not entitled to indemnity costs. The Roche Parents' application for costs of separate representation was dismissed because no reasonable basis for separate representation was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial List Proceedings Concerning Interest and Costs After Automatic Rescission of Contractual Arrangements and Return of a Deposit / Determination of Remaining Issues of Interest and Costs Following Earlier Judgment and Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Order for interest limited to period after accrual of the cause of action; indemnity costs and separate representation costs refused.
Legal Topics
['interest on Judgment' 'accrual of Cause of Action' 'automatic Rescission' 'return of Deposit' 'offer of Compromise and Indemnity Costs' 'costs of Separate Representation']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'costs'] ['interest on Judgment' 'accrual of Cause of Action' 'automatic Rescission' 'return of Deposit' 'offer of Compromise and Indemnity Costs' 'costs of Separate Representation']

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

Commercial List Proceedings Concerning Interest and Costs After Automatic Rescission of Contractual Arrangements and Return of a Deposit / Determination of Remaining Issues of Interest and Costs Following Earlier Judgment and Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interest on the deposit was payable from the date the deposit was paid or only from the date the cause of action for return of the deposit arose.' 'When the cause of action in relation to the deposit arose for the purposes of s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether Roche was entitled to indemnity costs by reference to its Offer of Compromise dated 8 July 2005.' 'Whether the Roche Parents should have their costs of separate representation paid by Metro.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) focuses on the time when the cause of action arose, and permits interest only from that time until judgment. The relevant cause of action for return of the deposit arose on 31 March 2004 when the Development Contract came to an end by automatic rescission, so Roche was entitled to interest on the deposit only from 31 March 2004. Because Roche did not better its Offer of Compromise, it was not entitled to indemnity costs. The Roche Parents' application for costs of separate representation was dismissed because no reasonable basis for separate representation was shown.

Court Disposition

Order for interest limited to period after accrual of the cause of action; indemnity costs and separate representation costs refused.

Orders

  • ['Roche is entitled to interest on the deposit from 31 March 2004.' 'Roche has no entitlement to indemnity costs.' "The Parent Guarantors' application for Metro to pay the costs of separate representation, or alternatively counsel costs, is dismissed." 'Roche is to pay the costs of the Metro Parties with respect to...