Outerbridge trading as Century 21 Plateau Lifestyle Real Estate v Hall (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 8

Outerbridge trading as Century 21 Plateau Lifestyle Real Estate v Hall (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 8

The defendants' offer of compromise did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Part 20.26 of the UCPR as it referred to the defence rather than the plaintiffs' claim and did not bear a statement to the effect that it was made in accordance with the rules. Consequently, it was not a valid offer of compromise and did not trigger a prima facie entitlement to indemnity costs. In any event, no apportionment of costs was justified as the unsuccessful issues were not dominant or separable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Application After Final Hearing
Outcome
Indemnity costs application rejected; each party to pay own costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules' 'calderbank Offers']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules' 'calderbank Offers']

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

Civil / Costs Application After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' offer of compromise complied with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules" 'Whether an indemnity costs order should be made' "Whether costs should be apportioned due to the defendants' lack of success on certain issues"]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' offer of compromise did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Part 20.26 of the UCPR as it referred to the defence rather than the plaintiffs' claim and did not bear a statement to the effect that it was made in accordance with the rules. Consequently, it was not a valid offer of compromise and did not trigger a prima facie entitlement to indemnity costs. In any event, no apportionment of costs was justified as the unsuccessful issues were not dominant or separable.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs application rejected; each party to pay own costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ['Order (2) made on 3 December 2019 is confirmed subject to order (2) below.' 'The parties are each to pay their own costs in relation to the costs application.' 'Liberty to approach the Associate to Dicker DCJ within seven days to relist the matter if an alternative order to order (2) is sought.']