Bruno Pisano -v- Georgia Dandris [No. 2] [2014] NSWSC 1240

Bruno Pisano -v- Georgia Dandris [No. 2] [2014] NSWSC 1240

The Pisanos succeeded and obtained judgment far more favourable than their offer of compromise. There was no proper basis to order otherwise under UCPR Pt 42 r 42.14(2), because Dandris' own offer was reasonably rejected and there was no suggestion her solicitor's office closure affected acceptance of the Pisanos' offer. Williams was liable for costs from the date he was joined, and the circumstances did not warrant differentiating between issues on which the Pisanos succeeded and those on which they did not.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings; Costs and Final Orders / After Judgment on Liability and Quantum; Submissions on Costs and Final Orders
Outcome
Judgment for the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff against the first defendant and the second defendant in the sum of $1,171,124, with costs orders for the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'final Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'building and Construction'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'final 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings; Costs and Final Orders / After Judgment on Liability and Quantum; Submissions on Costs and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should receive their costs after succeeding in the proceedings.' "Whether the plaintiffs' offer of compromise required indemnity costs against the first defendant from 22 December 2012." "Whether the first defendant's without-prejudice save as to costs offer justified a different costs order." "Whether the second defendant's liability for costs should be limited or apportioned."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Pisanos succeeded and obtained judgment far more favourable than their offer of compromise. There was no proper basis to order otherwise under UCPR Pt 42 r 42.14(2), because Dandris' own offer was reasonably rejected and there was no suggestion her solicitor's office closure affected acceptance of the Pisanos' offer. Williams was liable for costs from the date he was joined, and the circumstances did not warrant differentiating between issues on which the Pisanos succeeded and those on which they did not.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff against the first defendant and the second defendant in the sum of $1,171,124, with costs orders for the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff against the first defendant and the second defendant in the sum of $1,171,124.' "The first defendant and the second defendant are to pay the first plaintiff's and the second plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." 'The costs payable by the first defendant...