Hull v Brailey [2012] NSWSC 1164

Hull v Brailey [2012] NSWSC 1164

The offer made by the defendants did not represent a genuine attempt at compromise and was more in the nature of nuisance money; thus, indemnity costs were not justified from 12 April 2012. Plaintiffs are to pay defendants' costs as agreed or assessed and interest on costs, subject to specified caps, as evidence of payment was provided.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Richard Kenneth Hull; Second Plaintiff: Richard Kenneth Hull and Lainie Hull ATF the R&L Superannuation Fund; Third Plaintiff: Lainie Hull; First Defendant: Edmund Francis Brailey; Second Defendant: TJC Financial Planning Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs / Judgment on Costs After Substantive Decision
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs as agreed or assessed, with interest subject to the caps specified.
Legal Topics
Costs, Interest on Costs, Indemnity Costs, Calderbank Offer
Civil Procedure Costs Interest on Costs Indemnity Costs Calderbank Offer

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Kenneth Hull

First Plaintiff

Richard Kenneth Hull and Lainie Hull ATF the R&L Superannuation Fund

Second Plaintiff

Lainie Hull

Third Plaintiff

Edmund Francis Brailey

First Defendant

TJC Financial Planning Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs / Judgment on Costs After Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered from 12 April 2012
  2. 2 Whether the offer made constituted a real and genuine compromise for the purposes of Calderbank
  3. 3 Whether interest on costs should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The offer made by the defendants did not represent a genuine attempt at compromise and was more in the nature of nuisance money; thus, indemnity costs were not justified from 12 April 2012. Plaintiffs are to pay defendants' costs as agreed or assessed and interest on costs, subject to specified caps, as evidence of payment was provided.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs as agreed or assessed, with interest subject to the caps specified.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs of the action as agreed or assessed.
  • The plaintiffs are to pay to the defendants interest on costs as assessed or agreed but not exceeding costs of $207,589.09 from 11 April 2012 until payment of that interest.