Chapman v Wickman Ryan Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 536

Chapman v Wickman Ryan Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 536

The court declined to order indemnity costs because the offers made by respondents were not genuine offers of compromise and because the applicants' case, though unsuccessful, could not be categorised as hopeless; the usual costs rule (party-party) applies.

Parties
Applicants: William Ludlow Chapman & Jean Chapman; First Respondent/first Cross Claimant: Wickman Ryan Pty Ltd; Second Respondent/second Cross Claimant: Wesfarmers Dalgety Ltd; Cross Respondent: Agrevo Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment, Application for Indemnity Costs After Judgment Dismissing the Substantive Application
Outcome
Notice of motion for indemnity costs dismissed; usual party-party costs order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Offers of Compromise, Federal Court Procedure
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Offers of Compromise Federal Court Procedure

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Ludlow Chapman & Jean Chapman

Applicants

Wickman Ryan Pty Ltd

First Respondent/first Cross Claimant

Wesfarmers Dalgety Ltd

Second Respondent/second Cross Claimant

Agrevo Pty Limited

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment, Application for Indemnity Costs After Judgment Dismissing the Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents are entitled to indemnity costs after applicants were wholly unsuccessful
  2. 2 Whether letters sent to applicants constituted an offer of compromise attracting indemnity costs consequences
  3. 3 Whether the applicants pursued a hopeless case justifying indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to order indemnity costs because the offers made by respondents were not genuine offers of compromise and because the applicants' case, though unsuccessful, could not be categorised as hopeless; the usual costs rule (party-party) applies.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion for indemnity costs dismissed; usual party-party costs order affirmed.

Orders

  • The notice of motion is dismissed.
  • The applicants to this notice of motion are to pay the respondents' costs of the motion.