Guiney v Australand Holdings Ltd & Ors; Castlehaven Sales No 2 (trading as Castlehaven Realtors) & Ors v Guiney & Ors (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 124

Guiney v Australand Holdings Ltd & Ors; Castlehaven Sales No 2 (trading as Castlehaven Realtors) & Ors v Guiney & Ors (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 124

The special costs orders were refused because the appellant's accepted 2007 offer lapsed when the first respondent did not accept it, the offer was not the appellant's own offer, the appellant failed on quantum, and neither the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 nor Calderbank principles provided a basis for shifting the second and third respondents' appeal costs to the first respondent or for indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Consequential Costs Application in Appeals / On Written Submissions After the Court of Appeal Had Disposed of the Appeal
Outcome
Appellant's application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Appeal' 'offer of Compromise' 'offer of Contribution' 'calderbank Offer' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'costs of Appeal' 'offer of Compromise' 'offer of Contribution' 'calderbank Offer' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Consequential Costs Application in Appeals / On Written Submissions After the Court of Appeal Had Disposed of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should obtain a Sanderson order requiring the first respondent to pay the second and third respondents' costs of the appeal." 'Whether the second and third respondents should have their costs against the first respondent assessed on an indemnity basis after 27 April 2007.' 'Whether lapsed or unaccepted settlement offers made during the appeal justified special costs orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The special costs orders were refused because the appellant's accepted 2007 offer lapsed when the first respondent did not accept it, the offer was not the appellant's own offer, the appellant failed on quantum, and neither the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 nor Calderbank principles provided a basis for shifting the second and third respondents' appeal costs to the first respondent or for indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Appellant's application dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's application should be dismissed." "The appellant should pay one half of the first respondent's costs of this application." "The second and third respondents should pay the other half of the first respondent's costs of this application."]