State of NSW v Elms (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 158

State of NSW v Elms (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 158

There was no basis to vary the proposed costs orders because the claimant's offers did not justify indemnity costs and the opponent did not identify any costs thrown away by the drafting of the appeal grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders Concerning Costs / Applications Concerning Costs Following Delivery of Judgment
Outcome
No variation made to costs orders in earlier judgment [2008] NSWCA 157.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'compromise Offers' 'costs Thrown Away' 'departure From Usual Costs Order']
['practice' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'compromise Offers' 'costs Thrown Away' 'departure From Usual Costs Order']

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 Orders Concerning Costs / Applications Concerning Costs Following Delivery of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the claimant should receive costs on an indemnity basis because of offers made prior to the hearing.' 'Whether the costs orders should be varied because the grounds of appeal were wider than the grounds on which the matter was determined.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no basis to vary the proposed costs orders because the claimant's offers did not justify indemnity costs and the opponent did not identify any costs thrown away by the drafting of the appeal grounds.

Court Disposition

No variation made to costs orders in earlier judgment [2008] NSWCA 157.

Orders

  • ['The orders of the court are those originally proposed by Justice Hodgson.']