Chiodo Corporation Pty Ltd v Refresh Finance Pty Ltd

1. [1]

   HIS HONOUR: On 29 October 2019, Atkinson LCM published her reasons for judgment in proceedings between Refresh Finance Pty Ltd and Chiodo Corporation Pty Ltd in which Refresh claimed a facilitation fee of $95,700 for arranging finance for Chiodo Corporation from La Trobe Financial Pty Ltd. Chiodo Corporation cross-claimed against Infin8 Finance Group Pty Ltd upon the basis that it was Refresh’s agent and that Chiodo Corporation had been misled by Infin8’s representations about a presales condition that formed part of La Trobe’s written offer of finance. Chiodo Corporation claimed that it had entered into the finance contract relying upon representations made by Infin8 that the presales condition would be removed.

2. [2]

   Her Honour found at [67] that on the balance of probabilities Chiodo Corporation had accepted the offer made by La Trobe “subject to the removal of the presales condition”. In forming that conclusion, her Honour found that Refresh was Chiodo Corporation’s agent and that Infin8 was Refresh’s agent. However, despite those findings, her Honour inexplicably concluded that Chiodo Corporation was liable to pay Refresh the facilitation fee it claimed but that Infin8 was somehow liable to indemnify Chiodo Corporation on its cross-claim for the same amount. Her Honour found that the misleading and deceptive conduct upon which Chiodo Corporation relied was the conduct of Mr Lecordier, Infin8’s director. Her Honour appears to have reasoned that Refresh was entitled to succeed because the representation that the presales condition would be removed that induced Chiodo Corporation to enter the agreement was made by Infin8, the sub-agent, and so was not the conduct of Refresh itself.

3. [3]

   By its amended summons filed on 9 December 2019, Chiodo Corporation seeks orders setting aside her Honour’s judgment. The grounds upon which Chiodo relies are as follows:

   1. (1)

      The learned magistrate erred in failing to apply the correct legal principle to the facts, namely, in light of the findings made at paragraphs [46], [67] and [87] of her judgment given on 29 October 2019, she failed to hold Refresh Finance Pty Ltd bound by the conduct of its agent, Infin8 Finance Group Pty Ltd.

   2. (2)

      The learned magistrate erred in failing to apply the correct legal principle to the facts, namely that, in light of the finding made at paragraph [67] of her judgment, the La Trobe finance offer was non est factum as to Chiodo Corporation Pty Ltd, in circumstances where a condition precedent, being the removal of the presales condition, had not been met.

4. [4]

   Her Honour’s finding at [46] was that Infin8 was an agent of Refresh and not of Chiodo Corporation and Mr Chiodo. At [87] her Honour confirmed her earlier finding that Infin8 and Mr Lecordier engaged in trade or commerce in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive contrary to s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.

5. [5]

   Chiodo Corporation appeals to this Court pursuant to s 39(1) of the Local Court Act 2007 which provides as follows:

6. [6]

   Infin8 has filed a cross summons in this Court seeking leave to appeal pursuant to s 40(1) of the Local Court Act. That section is in these terms:

7. [7]

   The effective protagonists in this Court are therefore Chiodo Corporation and Infin8. They understandably direct attention to different aspects of her Honour’s decision. Chiodo Corporation challenges her Honour’s finding that it is liable to pay money to Refresh if, as she found, it was misled by Infin8 acting as the agent of Refresh. That challenge is based upon the proposition that the misleading and deceptive conduct of Infin8 must also be the misleading and deceptive conduct of its principal. On that analysis, Refresh would not be entitled to enforce the terms of its agreement with Chiodo Corporation, induced by the misleading and deceptive conduct of its agent, and would not be entitled to claim its facilitation fee.

8. [8]

   Infin8 on the other hand principally takes issue with her Honour’s conclusion that Mr Chiodo was in fact misled or deceived at all. It maintains, having regard to the evidence as a whole, that her Honour’s conclusion was erroneous, because it is glaringly improbable that Mr Chiodo would have been prepared to sign any document containing a presales condition that was wholly inconsistent with the representation he alleged had been made. If that contention holds good, the question of agency recedes because the misleading and deceptive conduct finding could not stand.

9. [9]

   In this last respect, Infin8 submits that leave to appeal should be granted because her Honour erred in fact and in law by failing to have any, or any sufficient, regard to highly relevant and probative evidence, by basing her decision on at best marginally relevant considerations and by misapprehending the evidence upon which she relied. Infin8 maintained that this raised an important point of law.

10. [10]

    Infin8 seeks no orders or relief in its cross-summons challenging her Honour’s finding that it was the agent of Refresh.

11. [11]

    Chiodo Corporation contended that her Honour should in fact have reasoned as follows.

12. [12]

    Infin8 was the agent of Refresh. Her Honour’s finding to that effect is obviously not challenged by Chiodo Corporation. Agency is “an authority or capacity in one person to create legal relations between a person occupying the position of principal and third parties”: International Harvester Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Carrigan’s Hazeldene Pastoral Company (1958) 100 CLR 644; [1958] HCA 16 at 652. Put another way, an agent is “a person who has authority to act on behalf of a principal, either generally or in respect of some particular act or matter”: Erikson v Carr (1945) 46 SR (NSW) 9 at 12. It follows that Refresh as a principal was bound by the actions of its agent Infin8.

13. [13]

    Chiodo Corporation contended that her Honour should then have found that Infin8, as the agent of Refresh, induced it to enter into an agreement for the provision of construction finance by La Trobe, subject to the removal of the presales condition. Chiodo Corporation accepted the offer of finance but the presales condition was never removed. Accordingly, Refresh was bound by the misleading and deceptive conduct of its agent that induced Chiodo Corporation to enter the agreement. Chiodo Corporation did not in those circumstances become liable to Refresh for payment of the facilitation fee to which Refresh would otherwise have been entitled. Her Honour’s finding that Infin8 was an agent of Refresh is dealt with later in these reasons.

14. [14]

    Chiodo Corporation understandably embraces her Honour’s finding at [46]: standing alone, and accepting for the purposes of the argument that her Honour’s conclusions about Infin8’s misleading and deceptive conduct remain on foot, the finding would dispose of this appeal in favour of Chiodo Corporation. That is because the conduct complained of would be the conduct of Refresh’s agent and therefore the conduct of Refresh. Refresh in contrast contends that the finding at [46] is wrong, presumably on the basis that Infin8 was Chiodo Corporation’s agent and Refresh is therefore not affected by any misleading or deceptive conduct in which Infin8 might have engaged. However, despite making submissions that her Honour erred in finding that Infin8 was an agent of Refresh, and erred in finding that Infin8 was not an agent of Chiodo Corporation, Refresh has sought no orders by cross-summons or otherwise to set any of her Honour’s findings aside. Refresh has also not sought any orders by cross-summons or otherwise challenging her Honour’s finding at [42] that Refresh was an agent of Chiodo Corporation. Infin8 has not disputed the finding that it was Refresh’s agent, presumably upon the basis that it was only liable to Chiodo Corporation on Chiodo Corporation’s cross-claim: the finding for which Chiodo Corporation contends in this Court concerning the presales representations would mean that Refresh would not be entitled to its facilitation fee and the relevance of that cross-claim would simultaneously evaporate. Refresh has never sued Infin8 contending that if it failed to recover its facilitation fee from Chiodo Corporation, Infin8 would in some way be liable for that loss.

15. [15]

    In these circumstances, it is convenient first to consider the issue that received the most attention from the parties in this Court: was Mr Chiodo induced to sign the agreement by reason of Mr Lecordier’s misleading and deceptive representations?

Background – the evidence below

1. [16]

   Paul Chiodo has been a property developer for nearly 20 years. Chiodo Corporation is a corporate vehicle by which he carried out that work. Mr Chiodo agreed that he was a highly experienced property developer and that he was an expert at what he did. He has been involved with individual projects worth as much as $150M and projects overall worth up to as much as $1B. Probably ninety percent of his projects required finance. He signed loan documentation in those cases. He understood that it was important to read and to understand what he was signing. The finance that was the subject of these proceedings was for a development project at 4 Judith Court, Doncaster, Victoria.

2. [17]

   Mr Lecordier and Mr Chiodo had worked together once before. They would appear to have commenced their correspondence with respect to the sourcing of finance for the Judith Court project in an email sequence between 12 and 18 May 2017. That correspondence is as follows:

3. [18]

   Not long after this, on 19 May 2017, Refresh wrote to Mr Chiodo in the following relevant terms:

4. [19]

   The Mandate to Act was signed by Mr Chiodo on the same day. It was made between Refresh and Chiodo Corporation as the borrower in the following relevant terms:

5. [20]

   Mr Lecordier then sent an email to Mr Chiodo on 22 May 2017 at 5.16 pm as follows:

6. [21]

   Shortly thereafter, on 14 June 2017, La Trobe Financial issued an Indicative Offer. It provided relevantly as follows:

7. [22]

   Mr Chiodo appears nowhere to have referred in writing or otherwise to the presales requirement mentioned in this document until 24 July 2017. This is referred to below.

8. [23]

   Some five weeks later than the sending of the Indicative Offer on 14 June 2017, La Trobe Financial sent Mr Chiodo a document on 21 July 2017 headed “Application for Finance - Letter of Offer”. It contained the following paragraphs:

9. [24]

   The General Terms and Conditions that were incorporated into the Letter of Offer included the following:

10. [25]

    Mr Chiodo signed this document on 25 July 2017, acknowledging that “the information contained in the application form [was] true and correct in every particular”.

11. [26]

    Mr Chiodo’s evidence in chief in the Local Court was contained in his affidavit sworn 7 December 2018. Part of what he said is as follows:

12. [27]

    Mr Chiodo exhibited some documents to this affidavit. For example, Mr Lecordier sent an email to Mr Chiodo on 24 July 2017 at 5.49 pm simply in these terms:

13. [28]

    Mr Chiodo’s response was by return email at 6.32 pm that day in these terms:

14. [29]

    On 25 July 2017 at 11.44 am, Mr Lecordier sent an email to Mr Chiodo in the following terms:

15. [30]

    In a subsequent affidavit sworn on 7 August 2019, Mr Chiodo responded to what had been said by Mr Lecordier in his 1 July 2019 affidavit. Part of that response was in these terms:

16. [31]

    Mr Chiodo’s evidence was that the email chain exhibited to this affidavit, reproduced earlier in these reasons, makes it clear that Mr Chiodo was only prepared to enter into the facility if there were no presales requirements. On one view, that does not appear unequivocally from the terms of that correspondence. The emails were exchanged in May. Mr Lecordier sent the Indicative Funding Proposal to Mr Chiodo on 22 May 2017. There is no further correspondence between Mr Chiodo and Mr Lecordier until late July. That includes what Mr Chiodo maintains was his apparently flippant or sarcastic reference to finding a purchaser in his email on 24 July 2017. In any event, Mr Chiodo signed the relevant documents containing the presales condition the very next day.

17. [32]

    Mr Chiodo and Mr Lecordier were both cross-examined at considerable length about these matters. Some of that evidence is referred to later in these reasons.

Infin8’s submissions

1. [33]

   Infin8’s principal contention is that her Honour failed to take account of important evidence, or failed to do so adequately, in reaching her decision that the presales representations were made. The particular representations are to be found in Chiodo Corporation’s amended defence filed in the Local Court on 8 February 2018. They are there variously expressed as follows:

2. [34]

   Infin8 submitted that her Honour did not have regard to the following matters:

   1. (1)

      Mr Chiodo was an experienced and expert property developer, as already described, and was a person who understood the importance of reading contractual documents. He agreed that he would not just sign contracts without reading and understanding them.

   2. (2)

      Mr Chiodo’s evidence was that he well understood the frequency of presales conditions and that a construction facility generally has such a condition.

   3. (3)

      Mr Chiodo was not able to produce an email, letter, file note or any other document prepared or signed by him that in any way asserted that an essential requirement for the loan he was seeking for the project was that it should not be subject to a presales condition.

   4. (4)

      All of the documents in evidence prepared or signed by Mr Chiodo over the relevant period were either expressly and categorically inconsistent with the proposition that he ever in any way asserted, or that Mr Lecordier ever in any way agreed or represented, that an essential requirement for the loan was that it should not be subject to a presales condition (for example, the Indicative Offer and the Formal Offer) or were implicitly inconsistent with such a proposition (for example, the Mandate letter) and were in either case inconsistent with the alleged representations.

   5. (5)

      Mr Chiodo sent an email to Infin8 in December 2016 indicating, in effect, that he was, at least at about that time, willing to consider a presales condition for the project if that were required to secure the necessary funding. The transcript of Mr Chiodo’s cross-examination on this point included the following:

   6. (6)

      Mr Chiodo had only met Mr Lecordier the previous year on one prior transaction. It was therefore improbable that Mr Chiodo would not have made a note or otherwise confirmed in writing, if the May 2017 discussion was “absolutely” vital, to the effect that, unlike the position in July and December 2016, it was now an essential requirement for the loan that it should not be subject to a presales condition.

   7. (7)

      It was glaringly improbable that Mr Chiodo would have been prepared to sign documents wholly inconsistent with the alleged representations.

   8. (8)

      The 12 May 2017 email in which Mr Chiodo confirmed, when asked by Mr Lecordier, that there was at that stage no presales condition in the (then current) finance arrangement, was inconsistent with Mr Chiodo’s assertion that it had been expressly discussed that day as an essential requirement. Had the discussion occurred, it would not have made sense for Mr Lecordier to inquire again whether there was an existing presales condition on the project. Moreover, if it had been “absolutely” significant that the loan not contain a presales condition, it is improbable that Mr Chiodo would not have recorded it in his 12 May 2017 email.

   9. (9)

      Mr Chiodo signed and accepted the 19 May 2017 Indicative Funding Proposal that contained a clear statement that the indicative approval conditions would be those “as required by the Lender” and which expressly stated “We do not determine or recommend the conditions of a credit contract”.

   10. (10)

       The Indicative Funding Proposal was inconsistent with Mr Chiodo’s asserted position in the 12 May 2017 email.

   11. (11)

       The Mandate to Act expressly stated that Refresh made no representation, guarantee or warranty that the finance facility offer procured would match the borrower’s terms.

   12. (12)

       The 14 June 2017 Indicative Offer expressly said that the offer “will also be subject to obtaining…Presales required to produce 50% debt coverage”.

   13. (13)

       The formal Letter of Offer dated 21 July 2017 contained express written terms in unambiguous and unequivocal language that was wholly inconsistent with the alleged presales representations. In particular, special condition (l) specifically referred to the requirement for evidence of unconditional presales for 50% of the loan amount prior to settlement. Mr Chiodo signed this letter twice in two capacities as a director and guarantor.

   14. (14)

       Mr Chiodo conceded in cross-examination that he read the formal Letter of Offer before he signed it and that he would have to pay 50% of Refresh’s facilitation fee even if he did not proceed with the loan.

   15. (15)

       Mr Chiodo did not send an email or make any file note of the alleged representation made to him on 25 July 2017.

   16. (16)

       Mr Chiodo never sent an email or other written communication to Infin8 or Refresh or to anyone else complaining that he had been misled as alleged.

3. [35]

   Infin8 made further detailed submissions along similar lines. The consistent and reoccurring, not to say repetitive, theme of those submissions is that it is incredible that Mr Chiodo, with his background and experience, would have committed himself to a contract that contained a condition he did not want and could not fulfil. One paragraph from those submissions will serve as an example:

Chiodo Corporations submissions

1. [36]

   It will be immediately apparent that the predicate of Infin8’s incredulity and astonishment at her Honour’s conclusion is Chiodo Corporation’s response: the only reasonable or rational explanation for Mr Chiodo’s signature on the loan documents containing a presales condition, taking into account the very expertise and experience that Infin8 emphasises, is that the representations he alleges were actually made by Mr Lecordier and that Mr Chiodo relied upon them. Rhetorically, why else would he have signed them? Chiodo Corporation contends that these are competing inferences between which her Honour was entitled to choose. In doing so her Honour had the advantage of seeing and hearing both Mr Chiodo and Mr Lecordier give evidence, an advantage that should not lightly be discounted. Chiodo Corporation submits that Infin8’s invocations of glaring improbability do not necessarily provide only a single possible outcome.

Consideration

1. [37]

   Her Honour’s decision that the representations were in fact made appears at [64]-[66] of her judgment. That paragraph is as follows:

2. [38]

   As earlier recorded, her Honour considered that the accounts of Mr Chiodo and Mr Lecordier were diametrically opposed. Mr Chiodo was taken to the 12 May 2017 email and gave the following evidence under cross-examination:

3. [39]

   Mr Chiodo also said in cross-examination that he “had no ability to satisfy” a presales condition. Mr Chiodo said, and her Honour accepted, that his reference in the email sent at 6.32 pm on 24 July 2017 saying “Know anyone that can buy a property?” was a sarcastic reference contemporaneously reaffirming his inability to satisfy a presales condition. Chiodo Corporation submitted that her Honour was entitled to accept that evidence and Mr Chiodo’s explanation of what it meant. Chiodo Corporation contended that it was glaringly improbable that it would have committed itself to an agreement that rendered it liable to the payment of a considerable sum that included the obligation to comply with a 50% presales condition or requirement that it could not fulfil. Her Honour accepted that analysis and Chiodo Corporation maintained that she was entitled to do so.

4. [40]

   Chiodo Corporation also maintained that Infin8’s submissions fail to come to terms with an important piece of uncontested evidence from Mr Chiodo concerning his conversation with Naomi Scholten from Refresh. As already recorded, Mr Chiodo said, at paragraphs 49 and 50 of his 7 December 2018 affidavit, that when he received the Refresh loan documents, he phoned Ms Scholten and told her “I cannot sign these documents as they have a presale condition and this was a no presale deal”. Ms Scholten said that she needed to speak to Mr Lecordier. However, neither Refresh nor Infin8 called Ms Scholten to give evidence. Chiodo Corporation submitted that, in the absence of an explanation for her non-attendance, an inference should be drawn that her evidence would not have assisted either of them. Moreover, it is striking that Mr Chiodo would have given evidence of a conversation with Ms Scholten at Refresh that might have been capable of easy contradiction if it were not in fact true, and tends to support the proposition that Mr Chiodo was asserting that the loan was not conditional upon a presale, that he had told Mr Lecordier that in clear terms, and that he had been assured that no such condition would be enforced.

5. [41]

   In my opinion, it was entirely open to her Honour to have concluded that Mr Chiodo relied upon representations that the finance approval that Refresh was attempting to procure would not be subject to a presales condition. He had not sold any unit in the development. He had made no effort to do so. He had no ability in the available refinancing timeframe to satisfy such a condition. It made no commercial sense for Mr Chiodo to continue with attempts to obtain finance that was subject at the threshold to a condition he could not satisfy.

6. [42]

   Moreover, Infin8’s patent indignation at the apparent tension between Mr Chiodo’s acceptance of the proposition that he read and understood the loan documents and the fact that he went ahead and signed them containing the offending condition does not withstand scrutiny. It is highly improbable that Mr Chiodo, having read and understood the literal terms of the documents, would have blithely proceeded to sign them if it were not for the fact that he relied upon the representations alleged. Even if the construction of the documents and the fact that Mr Chiodo read and signed them objectively support equally glaring improbabilities, her Honour preferred the evidence of Mr Chiodo. It cannot in my view be contended that she was not entitled to do so. Her Honour’s preference for the evidence of Mr Chiodo has not in any event been directly attacked.

7. [43]

   It follows that Infin8’s challenge to her Honour’s finding that the representations were misleading and deceptive and relied upon by Chiodo Corporation must fail.

8. [44]

   As already observed, her Honour’s finding at [42] that Refresh was an agent of Chiodo Corporation is uncontroversial and is not challenged. However, her Honour found at [44] that Infin8 was an agent of Refresh. Her Honour should in those circumstances have concluded that Refresh was not entitled to its facilitation fee: her Honour’s finding that Refresh is entitled to its fee cannot stand with a finding that the misleading and deceptive representations were made by its agent. Her Honour’s conclusion that Refresh was entitled to its facilitation fee can only be understood if she had found, or had intended to find, that the representations that induced the contract were made by Infin8 acting as Chiodo Corporation’s agent.

9. [45]

   Her Honour's reasoning to her finding that Infin8 was the agent of Refresh is to be found at [44]-[46] as follows:

10. [46]

    Only Refresh argued for a different finding.

11. [47]

    First, Refresh submitted that it was immaterial that Infin8 did not have an Australian credit licence, as Infin8 is not a lender. Infin8 was engaged by Chiodo Corporation on two occasions. The first was to source the loan facility with Gippsreal in 2016, Chiodo Corporation’s original credit provider of the loan that was due to be discharged. The second was the loan in question for the construction of the Judith Court project.

12. [48]

    Secondly, Refresh contended that her Honour did not allow the referral agreement into evidence and yet she speculated about what it might have said. Her Honour incorrectly assumed that under the referral agreement Infin8 would be paid a fee when it referred matters to Refresh, when in fact Infin8 would not be entitled to payment by Refresh unless the end borrower (in this case Chiodo Corporation) settled the loan. Mr Lecordier’s evidence was that “if a deal isn’t settled, no one gets paid”.

13. [49]

    Thirdly, her Honour considered the fact that Mr Lecordier was acting as the intermediary between Refresh and Chiodo Corporation supported her finding that Infin8 was Refresh’s agent. Refresh argued that if Infin8 were Refresh’s agent “then by receiving information, or instructions from Infin8, or by providing updates and documents to Infin8, Refresh was in effect dealing with itself and not the end borrower”. Refresh submitted that it was “an untenable position that Refresh would need its own agent to play middle man between itself and the end borrower” and that “such action would only delay the transfer of information, and the finalisation of the matter”.

14. [50]

    Refresh also contended that her Honour failed to give proper consideration to the authorities. No particular content is given to that somewhat doughty submission. For example, with the exception of the reference to Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Spence Financial group Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] WASC 177 at [65], and the proposition that “whether in any case a finance broker is the agent of the financier is a question which must be determined on the facts of the particular case, there is a strong body of authority which supports the view that such an agency will not readily be inferred”, no specific criticism of her Honour’s approach is explained.

15. [51]

    In my opinion, her Honour has properly concluded, “on the facts of the particular case” that Refresh was the financier’s agent and dealt with Chiodo Corporation through its sub-agent Infin8. David Harrison is the sole director of Refresh and affirmed an affidavit on 29 October 2018 that was relied upon in the court below. In my opinion, a fair reading of Mr Harrison’s affidavit gives a convincing impression that Chiodo Corporation was dealing directly with Refresh in order to source the required finance. Mr Harrison does not refer at all to Infin8 or Mr Lecordier although it is clear from Mr Chiodo’s affidavit that many of the documents that were coming to Chiodo Corporation from La Trobe or Refresh came via the intermediation of Mr Lecordier. For example, Mr Chiodo says at paragraph 14 of his 7 December 2018 affidavit that he “received an email from Ricky [Lecordier] which attached a letter from Refresh Finance outlining the proposed facility to be granted to Chiodo Corporation”.

16. [52]

    Mr Chiodo also said at paragraph 11 of that affidavit that “Infin8 acts as a broker for financiers who lend money for a wide variety of purposes”. That was not objected to by Refresh. Her Honour was entitled to take it into account as an uncontradicted statement of fact.

17. [53]

    I consider that, having regard to the particular facts of the case she had to decide, her Honour was entitled to conclude that Infin8 was the agent of Refresh.

Conclusion

1. [54]

   It follows from what I have said that, in accordance with her Honour’s finding at [67], Chiodo Corporation accepted the offer made by La Trobe Financial Pty Ltd subject to the removal of the presales condition, having been induced to do so by the misleading and deceptive conduct of Infin8 acting as the agent of Refresh. That conduct of Infin8 as the agent of Refresh means that Refresh did not become entitled to its facilitation fee. Moreover, Infin8 obviously did not become liable to indemnify Chiodo Corporation for any amount that Chiodo Corporation was liable to pay Refresh.

2. [55]

   In these circumstances, I consider that the following orders should be made:

   1. (1)

      Allow Chiodo Corporation Pty Ltd’s appeal.

   2. (2)

      Dismiss Infin8 Finance Group Pty Ltd’s cross-appeal.

   3. (3)

      Set aside the orders made by her Honour Atkinson LCM on 29 October 2019.

   4. (4)

      In lieu thereof, order that the statement of claim filed by Refresh Finance Pty Ltd on 8 June 2018 be dismissed.

   5. (5)

      Set aside the costs orders made by her Honour Atkinson LCM on 21 November 2019.

   6. (6)

      Dismiss the cross-claim filed by Chiodo Corporation Pty Ltd on 14 February 2019.

3. [56]

   As I have not so far had the advantage of any submissions on costs, I have made no orders either with respect to costs of the proceedings in the Local Court or in this Court. I therefore direct the parties within 14 days, if so advised, to provide my Associate with written submissions not exceeding three pages dealing with the costs orders for which any party wishes to contend having regard to my conclusions in the matter.