(1) Roads and Traffic Authority v Ryan & 2 Ors (2) Blue Mountains City Council v Ryan & 2 Ors (No 2) [2002] NSWCA 128

(1) Roads and Traffic Authority v Ryan & 2 Ors (2) Blue Mountains City Council v Ryan & 2 Ors (No 2) [2002] NSWCA 128

Mr Pledge's cross-claims against the RTA and the Council did not make it fair to impose on him sole liability for their costs, because on the facts he was effectively seeking to share the burden and Nadia had her own reasons to pursue them. The RTA's Calderbank letters did not justify indemnity costs because the condition requiring dismissal of all cross-claims was not within Nadia's power and the offer was not shown to be one she unreasonably failed to accept. The capital sums had already been repaid, but restitutionary interest was payable at Schedule J rates because such interest restores the appellants to the position they would have been in but for the erroneous judgment and is not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Supplementary Judgment on Costs and Restitution / Judgment (no 2) After Judgment Delivered on 10 April 2002
Outcome
Additional costs and restitutionary interest orders made; claim for indemnity costs rejected; application for Bullock or Sanderson order against Mr Pledge rejected.
Legal Topics
['bullock Order' 'sanderson Order' 'calderbank Letters' 'indemnity Costs' 'restitution of Money Paid Under Judgment Later Set Aside' 'restitutionary Interest' 'schedule J Rates' "suitor's Fund Act Certificate"]
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'restitution' 'motor Accidents'] ['bullock Order' 'sanderson Order' 'calderbank Letters' 'indemnity Costs' 'restitution of Money Paid Under Judgment Later Set Aside' 'restitutionary Interest' 'schedule J Rates' "suitor's Fund Act Certificate"]

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

Appeal Supplementary Judgment on Costs and Restitution / Judgment (no 2) After Judgment Delivered on 10 April 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Nadia should have a Bullock order or Sanderson order against Mr Pledge for the costs of the RTA and the Council.' 'Whether Calderbank letters from the RTA justified indemnity costs from 5 September 2001.' 'Whether restitutionary interest was payable on money paid into Court under the judgment at first instance and later repaid.' 'Whether interest should be calculated at Schedule J rates or limited by the interest actually earned by the Protective Commissioner.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Pledge's cross-claims against the RTA and the Council did not make it fair to impose on him sole liability for their costs, because on the facts he was effectively seeking to share the burden and Nadia had her own reasons to pursue them. The RTA's Calderbank letters did not justify indemnity costs because the condition requiring dismissal of all cross-claims was not within Nadia's power and the offer was not shown to be one she unreasonably failed to accept. The capital sums had already been repaid, but restitutionary interest was payable at Schedule J rates because such interest restores the appellants to the position they would have been in but for the erroneous judgment and is not...

Court Disposition

Additional costs and restitutionary interest orders made; claim for indemnity costs rejected; application for Bullock or Sanderson order against Mr Pledge rejected.

Orders

  • ['Nadia and Mr Pledge pay the costs of appeal of the RTA and the Council, their liability in this respect to be joint and several.' "Each of Nadia and Mr Pledge be entitled to a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act if otherwise qualified." 'Mr Pledge and Nadia pay the costs of the trial of the RTA and the...