Fordyce v Fordham & Anor (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 362

Fordyce v Fordham & Anor (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 362

The respondents showed no sufficient basis to disturb the costs order that each party pay their own costs, as the appellant was not acting unreasonably in declining the offer given the effect of UCPR 42.19, and all circumstances of the case did not warrant departure from the ordinary rule.

Parties
Claimant: Louise Aileen Fordyce; 1st Opponent: Gary Shaun Fordham; 2nd Opponent: Narelle Jane Fordham
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Costs Application / Post Appeal Costs Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Calderbank Offers, Discontinuance of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Costs Calderbank Offers Discontinuance of Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Aileen Fordyce

Claimant

Gary Shaun Fordham

1st Opponent

Narelle Jane Fordham

2nd Opponent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure Costs Application / Post Appeal Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs order should be disturbed after unaccepted Calderbank offer
  2. 2 Whether respondents' offer displaced the usual costs order under UCPR 42.19

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents showed no sufficient basis to disturb the costs order that each party pay their own costs, as the appellant was not acting unreasonably in declining the offer given the effect of UCPR 42.19, and all circumstances of the case did not warrant departure from the ordinary rule.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs