Haggerty v Sweeten [2023] NSWSC 850

Haggerty v Sweeten [2023] NSWSC 850

The cross-defendants are entitled to the costs of the Cross-Claim on the ordinary basis as there were no adequate reasons to deny those costs under the relevant rules, and the defendants were aware costs would be sought. Plaintiffs are not entitled to additional costs or indemnity costs for the principal proceedings as the settlement terms did not put them in a better position than the offers made, and the conditions in their Calderbank offer were less favorable than the court's orders. The court declined to conduct a mini-trial on unresolved factual disputes and found no disentitling conduct by plaintiffs nor unreasonable rejection by defendants of settlement offers.

Parties
First Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Margaret Haggerty; Second Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant: Patricia Hume; Third Plaintiff/third Cross Defendant: Francis Johnson; First Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Benjamin Sweeten; Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Varvara Sellies
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Post Settlement, Costs Determination
Outcome
Cross-defendants awarded costs of the Cross-Claim on the ordinary basis; all other claims for costs dismissed; proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Settlements, Possession, Life Tenancy, Cross Claim, Trustees' Duties
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Property Law Costs Settlements Possession Life Tenancy Cross Claim +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Haggerty

First Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Patricia Hume

Second Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant

Francis Johnson

Third Plaintiff/third Cross Defendant

Benjamin Sweeten

First Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Varvara Sellies

Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders / Post Settlement, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following consent judgment and dismissal of cross-claim
  2. 2 Whether costs should follow the event given settlement without merits hearing
  3. 3 Impact of parties' conduct on costs determination

Ratio Decidendi

The cross-defendants are entitled to the costs of the Cross-Claim on the ordinary basis as there were no adequate reasons to deny those costs under the relevant rules, and the defendants were aware costs would be sought. Plaintiffs are not entitled to additional costs or indemnity costs for the principal proceedings as the settlement terms did not put them in a better position than the offers made, and the conditions in their Calderbank offer were less favorable than the court's orders. The court declined to conduct a mini-trial on unresolved factual disputes and found no disentitling conduct by plaintiffs nor unreasonable rejection by defendants of settlement offers.

Court Disposition

Cross-defendants awarded costs of the Cross-Claim on the ordinary basis; all other claims for costs dismissed; proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • The cross-claimants shall pay the cross-defendants their costs of the Cross-Claim on the ordinary basis.
  • All other claims for costs are dismissed with no further order.