Parry-Husbands v Roffe (No 2) [2024] NSWCATCD 16

Parry-Husbands v Roffe (No 2) [2024] NSWCATCD 16

Although the applicants were the successful party in the contested costs application, their conduct in commencing proceedings in NCAT to which they asserted there was no jurisdiction, and procedural defaults, justified no order as to costs for either party in the interlocutory application. Costs of the transfer application will be costs in the cause of the transferred proceedings. Refusal of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable as acceptance would likely have left respondents in a worse position.

Parties
First Applicant: Howard Keith Parry-Husbands; Second Applicant: Sharyn Ann Parry-Husbands; First Respondent: Danielle Phillipa Geraldine Roffe; Second Respondent: Yair Nassi
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Arising From Transfer of Proceedings to District Court / Post Transfer, Costs Determination
Outcome
No order as to costs for the application to transfer proceedings; costs of the transfer application are costs in the cause of the transferred proceedings.
Legal Topics
Costs, Transfer of Proceedings, Calderbank Offer
Civil Procedure Consumer and Commercial Costs Transfer of Proceedings 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard Keith Parry-Husbands

First Applicant

Sharyn Ann Parry-Husbands

Second Applicant

Danielle Phillipa Geraldine Roffe

First Respondent

Yair Nassi

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Arising From Transfer of Proceedings to District Court / Post Transfer, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which party should bear costs associated with the application to transfer proceedings from NCAT to the District Court of NSW
  2. 2 Whether refusal of a Calderbank offer justified a costs order
  3. 3 Whether conduct of the parties disentitled them to costs

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants were the successful party in the contested costs application, their conduct in commencing proceedings in NCAT to which they asserted there was no jurisdiction, and procedural defaults, justified no order as to costs for either party in the interlocutory application. Costs of the transfer application will be costs in the cause of the transferred proceedings. Refusal of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable as acceptance would likely have left respondents in a worse position.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs for the application to transfer proceedings; costs of the transfer application are costs in the cause of the transferred proceedings.

Orders

  • An oral hearing is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
  • The stay granted by reason of order 2 of the Tribunal dated 1 December 2023 is lifted.