SWM Financial Services Pty Ltd v Lloyd (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 202

SWM Financial Services Pty Ltd v Lloyd (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 202

The plaintiffs failed in their claim against the first, second and fifth defendants and obtained only a nominal entitlement against the third and fourth defendants, while the first and second defendants failed on their cross-claim. Separate costs orders were appropriate because the parties did not agree to a single order and apportionment of pre-hearing work was best left to assessment. The first and second defendants' liability on the cross-claim was confined to costs directly attributable to it. No indemnity costs were warranted because the defendants' offers invited capitulation rather than genuine compromise, the plaintiffs' claims were not so obviously hopeless that they were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs / Determination of Outstanding Costs Issues After Judgment Delivered on 31 October 2011
Outcome
The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings, and the first and second defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs directly attributable to the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['costs of Failed Claim and Failed Cross Claim' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers and Offers of Compromise' 'nominal Damages and Costs' 'genuine Offer of Compromise']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Failed Claim and Failed Cross Claim' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers and Offers of Compromise' 'nominal Damages and Costs' 'genuine Offer of Compromise']

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

Costs / Determination of Outstanding Costs Issues After Judgment Delivered on 31 October 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made as between the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants where the plaintiffs failed in their claim and the first and second defendants failed in their cross-claim.' 'Whether the first and second defendants should receive indemnity costs for defending the claim.' 'Whether the third, fourth and fifth defendants should receive indemnity costs because they did better than their offers of compromise.' 'What costs order should be made on the claim against the third, fourth and fifth defendants given the plaintiffs were entitled only to nominal damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed in their claim against the first, second and fifth defendants and obtained only a nominal entitlement against the third and fourth defendants, while the first and second defendants failed on their cross-claim. Separate costs orders were appropriate because the parties did not agree to a single order and apportionment of pre-hearing work was best left to assessment. The first and second defendants' liability on the cross-claim was confined to costs directly attributable to it. No indemnity costs were warranted because the defendants' offers invited capitulation rather than genuine compromise, the plaintiffs' claims were not so obviously hopeless that they were...

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings, and the first and second defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs directly attributable to the cross-claim.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings." "The first and second defendants should pay the plaintiffs' costs directly attributable to the cross claim."]