MELVILLE v. TADROS [1999] NSWCA 162

MELVILLE v. TADROS [1999] NSWCA 162

Where a plaintiff obtains a verdict less favourable than offers of compromise made by the defendant, the mandate of the costs rules (including their specific operation from the date of offer in both Supreme and District Courts) must be given effect, unless there are exceptional circumstances, which did not exist in this case. The fact that the plaintiff was sometimes unrepresented or suffered psychological problems did not warrant departure from the costs consequences, especially where the offers were made during periods of legal representation.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Anthony Melville; Opponent/respondent: Isaac Tadros
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From an Order as to Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Costs, Offers of Compromise, Judicial Discretion in Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Offers of Compromise Judicial Discretion in Costs Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Melville

Claimant/appellant

Isaac Tadros

Opponent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From an Order as to Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court below erred in its exercise of discretion regarding costs where the verdict obtained by the plaintiff was less favourable than offers of compromise by the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's unrepresented status or psychological condition justified a departure from the costs rule.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a plaintiff obtains a verdict less favourable than offers of compromise made by the defendant, the mandate of the costs rules (including their specific operation from the date of offer in both Supreme and District Courts) must be given effect, unless there are exceptional circumstances, which did not exist in this case. The fact that the plaintiff was sometimes unrepresented or suffered psychological problems did not warrant departure from the costs consequences, especially where the offers were made during periods of legal representation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal upheld.