Australia, April 12 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on March 12:

1. This is a troubling example of a case where the costs of documenting a settlement of proceedings have got entirely out of hand.

2. The plaintiffs are a married couple.

3. In 2015, the plaintiffs purchased a property in Wagga Wagga from the fourth and fifth defendants, also a married couple.

4. The plaintiffs allege that the fourth defendant performed residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) on the property and in so doing performed, supervised, coordinated, project managed and controlled an extension and renovation to the property pursuant to an owner-builder permit.

5. The plaintiffs allege that there were defects in the property.

6. On 28 September 2021, the plaintiffs commenced these proceedings. The defendants in the proceedings are the fourth and fifth defendants, together with:

1) the solicitors who acted for the plaintiffs on the purchase of the property, the first and second defendants;

2) the author of a building inspection report in respect of the property, the third defendant; and

3) an engineer who prepared relevant plans, the sixth defendant.

7. The defendants cross-claimed against each other.

8. The proceedings were listed for hearing for 10 days commencing 24 February 2025 before me.

9. On 10 February 2025, the plaintiffs, through their solicitor, put this offer to all of the defendants:

"(a) the Defendants pay the Plaintiffs the amount of [$1,655,000] ... in shares to be agreed between the Defendants; and

(b) the parties agree to orders that enter judgment in favour of all Defendants and Cross-Defendants in the Proceedings, with all previous costs orders being vacated and with no order as to costs made with the intention that each party bears their own costs.

The Offer is capable of immediate acceptance in writing at which point in time a binding agreement comes into force between the parties."

10. The defendants accepted that offer the following day.

11. The resultant settlement left two significant matters unresolved. The first was the time at which the $1,655,000 was to be paid. The second was the manner in which the promise to pay was to be documented, it otherwise being agreed that there would be judgment in favour of all defendants and cross-defendants.

12. Thus, although there was a binding settlement, the parties intended the terms be restated "in a form which will be fuller or more precise but not different in effect". [1]

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19583bf66f7349584874987d)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.