Australia City Properties Management Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 65111 (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 43

Australia City Properties Management Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 65111 (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 43

The Offers of Compromise did not comply with UCPR r 20.26 and, being joint offers to parties with separate claims, did not trigger costs consequences under the Rules. Neither plaintiff acted unreasonably in failing to accept the offers. Given mixed success and the separability of the issues, costs should be apportioned such that: (1) the first plaintiff pays the defendant's costs of the claim for loss of bargain damages; (2) the defendant pays the first plaintiff’s costs in relation to claims regarding Lot 179; (3) the cross-claimant pays the cross-defendant’s costs of the Amended Cross-Claim; and (4) as between the second plaintiff and the Owners Corporation, each party bears its own costs.

Parties
First Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Australia City Properties Management Pty Limited; Second Plaintiff: Bo Yun Wang; Defendant/cross Claimant: The Owners - Strata Plan No. 65111
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
Orders for costs made as set out in paragraphs [23] and [24]: costs divided between parties according to success on clearly separable issues, with some costs orders and some orders that parties bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Offers of Compromise, Indemnity Costs, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Equity Costs Offers of Compromise Indemnity Costs Declaratory Relief

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australia City Properties Management Pty Limited

First Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Bo Yun Wang

Second Plaintiff

The Owners - Strata Plan No. 65111

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Offers of Compromise made by the Owners Corporation complied with UCPR r 20.26 and could give rise to indemnity costs orders
  2. 2 How costs should be apportioned where multiple parties have had partial success
  3. 3 Whether costs should be borne separately between first and second plaintiff's claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Offers of Compromise did not comply with UCPR r 20.26 and, being joint offers to parties with separate claims, did not trigger costs consequences under the Rules. Neither plaintiff acted unreasonably in failing to accept the offers. Given mixed success and the separability of the issues, costs should be apportioned such that: (1) the first plaintiff pays the defendant's costs of the claim for loss of bargain damages; (2) the defendant pays the first plaintiff’s costs in relation to claims regarding Lot 179; (3) the cross-claimant pays the cross-defendant’s costs of the Amended Cross-Claim; and (4) as between the second plaintiff and the Owners Corporation, each party bears its own costs.

Court Disposition

Orders for costs made as set out in paragraphs [23] and [24]: costs divided between parties according to success on clearly separable issues, with some costs orders and some orders that parties bear own costs.

Orders

  • As to the costs of the Further Amended Statement of Claim as between the first plaintiff and the defendant: (i) first plaintiff to pay defendant's costs in relation to first plaintiff's claim for loss of bargain damages; (ii) defendant to pay first plaintiff's costs in relation to claims concerning Lot 179.
  • As to the costs of the Further Amended Statement of Claim as between the second plaintiff and the defendant: each party to bear own costs.