Australia, May 9 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on April 9:
1. I delivered the principal judgment in this case on 25 March 2025: Crosato v Pro Evolution Sports Pty Limited [2025] NSWSC 261. Definitions in the principal judgment are used here.
2. All that remains to be determined is costs. I have received written submissions from both active parties and the Valuer.
3. Ultimately, the only question in the case was whether the Valuer's determination was in accordance with the Lease. The plaintiff contended that it was and the defendants that it was not. The defendants prevailed.
4. Three things are clear:
1) the Determination was not in accordance with the Lease;
2) it did not and could never have provided a basis to make the Lessee or guarantor liable for the payment of outgoings when they were not so liable under the Lease; and
3) the plaintiff contended that the Determination was valid and effectively provided a basis for the Lessee to be liable for outgoings, and failed.
5. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event in accordance with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.1.
6. The plaintiff submits that the Valuer should be ordered to pay a portion of the plaintiff's costs on the footing that his valuation was not upheld but was thus responsible for the position that ultimately pertained. I reject this submission. The Valuer properly filed a submitting appearance. He did not seek to uphold his valuation, it was the plaintiff who did that and at her own costs risk.
7. The plaintiff/second cross-defendant is to pay:
1) the defendants' and cross-claimant's costs; and
2) the first cross-defendant's costs of, and incidental to, the submissions on costs.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19617ee55e5954b876ce60f1)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
