Bird v Ford (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 429
Indemnity costs are ordered from 11 August 2012 due to plaintiffs' unreasonable rejection of genuine offers of compromise and their failure to better the offers at trial, fulfilling the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 for such orders.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 April 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Application / Post Trial Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Indemnity costs order in favour of defendants from 11 August 2012; ordinary costs order prior to that; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of motion for leave to tender Mr Davidson's affidavit.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'procedural Rules']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Trial Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether indemnity costs should be ordered following rejection of genuine offers of compromise including Calderbank offers and offers under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005']
Ratio Decidendi
Indemnity costs are ordered from 11 August 2012 due to plaintiffs' unreasonable rejection of genuine offers of compromise and their failure to better the offers at trial, fulfilling the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 for such orders.
Court Disposition
Indemnity costs order in favour of defendants from 11 August 2012; ordinary costs order prior to that; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of motion for leave to tender Mr Davidson's affidavit.
Orders
- ["The plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs on the ordinary basis to 11 August 2012 and thereafter on an indemnity basis." "The defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion for leave to tender the affidavit of Mr Davidson."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment