Lucas v Salman (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1527
Because evidence for the successful estoppel claim and the unsuccessful claims substantially overlapped, and the Offer did not render the plaintiff’s position less favourable nor was it unreasonable to reject it, there was no proper basis to displace the usual rule that costs follow the event; thus, the defendants must pay the plaintiffs’ costs.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 November 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Application (post Judgment in Equity) / Costs Orders Following Principal Judgment
- Outcome
- Defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'party/party Costs' 'discretion of Court' 'estoppel' 'family Provision' 'breach of Contract' 'calderbank Offer']
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 Judgment in Equity) / Costs Orders Following Principal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Should costs follow the event even where plaintiffs succeeded only in part?' 'Should a differentiated costs order be made given partial success?' 'Should a Calderbank offer affect the costs outcome given competing arguments as to its favourability and reasonableness of refusal?']
Ratio Decidendi
Because evidence for the successful estoppel claim and the unsuccessful claims substantially overlapped, and the Offer did not render the plaintiff’s position less favourable nor was it unreasonable to reject it, there was no proper basis to displace the usual rule that costs follow the event; thus, the defendants must pay the plaintiffs’ costs.
Court Disposition
Defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings.
Orders
- ["Defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs."]
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