Moss v Lowe Hunt & Partners Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 18

Moss v Lowe Hunt & Partners Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 18

This is not an exceptional case to depart from the presumption favouring indemnity costs under Order 23 rule 11(4); the respondents did not establish proper reasons to displace the presumption, and the applicants substantially complied with disclosure obligations and provided sufficient information to enable assessment of the offer.

Parties
First Applicant: Andrew Moss; Second Applicant: Pegasus Strategic Planning Pty Limited; First Respondent: Lowe Hunt & Partners Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Lowe Sydney Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs
Outcome
Second applicant's costs awarded as sought; respondents to pay costs taxed party/party up to and including 23 March 2009, thereafter taxed on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Offer of Compromise, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Damages
Civil Procedure Contract Law Consumer Law Costs Indemnity Costs Offer of Compromise Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Moss

First Applicant

Pegasus Strategic Planning Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Lowe Hunt & Partners Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Lowe Sydney Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment; Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded under Order 23 rule 11(4) of the Federal Court Rules after the applicants served an offer of compromise
  2. 2 Whether respondents rebutted the presumption for indemnity costs
  3. 3 Effect of pleading amendments and informational deficiencies on costs

Ratio Decidendi

This is not an exceptional case to depart from the presumption favouring indemnity costs under Order 23 rule 11(4); the respondents did not establish proper reasons to displace the presumption, and the applicants substantially complied with disclosure obligations and provided sufficient information to enable assessment of the offer.

Court Disposition

Second applicant's costs awarded as sought; respondents to pay costs taxed party/party up to and including 23 March 2009, thereafter taxed on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay the second applicant's costs (including any reserved costs) taxed on a party/party basis up to and including 23 March 2009 and thereafter taxed on an indemnity basis.