Canterbury Municipal Council v Taylor & Ors (No 2) [2002] NSWCA 96

Canterbury Municipal Council v Taylor & Ors (No 2) [2002] NSWCA 96

Sanderson and Bullock orders were not granted, as the claims against each defendant were sufficiently distinct and Mr Taylor pursued claims against all parties independently; the conduct of unsuccessful defendants was not such as to make it fair to impose liability for the costs of successful defendants. Indemnity costs were declined because the offer of compromise did not mirror the effect of the final judgment.

Parties
Appellant/1st Cross Respondent: Canterbury Municipal Council; Respondent/cross Appellant: William Roy Taylor; 2nd Cross Respondent: Christopher John Keogh; 3rd Cross Respondent: Karen Benedet (as Executrix of the Estate of Franco Benedet)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Decision on Costs Orders Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Orders made in terms of paragraphs 1 to 7.3 of the draft minutes of 25 March 2002.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Sanderson and Bullock Orders, Indemnity Costs, Apportionment of Damages
Civil Procedure Costs Orders Sanderson and Bullock Orders Indemnity Costs Apportionment of Damages

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canterbury Municipal Council

Appellant/1st Cross Respondent

William Roy Taylor

Respondent/cross Appellant

Christopher John Keogh

2nd Cross Respondent

Karen Benedet (as Executrix of the Estate of Franco Benedet)

3rd Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Decision on Costs Orders Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sanderson or Bullock orders should be made against the Council and Mrs Benedet
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded based on an offer of compromise

Ratio Decidendi

Sanderson and Bullock orders were not granted, as the claims against each defendant were sufficiently distinct and Mr Taylor pursued claims against all parties independently; the conduct of unsuccessful defendants was not such as to make it fair to impose liability for the costs of successful defendants. Indemnity costs were declined because the offer of compromise did not mirror the effect of the final judgment.

Court Disposition

Orders made in terms of paragraphs 1 to 7.3 of the draft minutes of 25 March 2002.

Orders

  • No Sanderson or Bullock orders granted.
  • No indemnity costs order granted.