The Court held that a plaintiff who establishes alternative and inconsistent remedies against the same defendant (here restitution, detinue, and conversion all concerning the same machines) must elect between them before judgment is entered, and it is for the judge to raise the issue if counsel does not. On costs, the Court awarded 75% of the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis against the first defendant (3V) due to extensive dishonest conduct in the litigation — including false denials, manufactured documents, and deliberate misleading of the Court — but discounted by 25% because the plaintiff failed on numerous claims including bailment, trespass, equitable compensation, and lost commercial opportunity. The successful defendant (Mr Dajian Li) was ordered to bear his own costs despite being the substantially successful party, because his own misconduct in contesting issues on a knowingly false basis disentitled him to costs. On interest, a demand for delivery up of goods does not constitute a demand for payment under s 58 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), distinguishing Ikosidekas where there was an actual demand for repayment of money.
The full text is available to signed-in members.