Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Limited v Nguyen (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1327

Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Limited v Nguyen (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1327

The plaintiff's action was brought when the plaintiff, through Mr Tomazin, knew the essential factual basis of its claim was false, and its defence to the cross action also lacked any honest basis. In those circumstances the defendants were prima facie entitled to indemnity costs, and the plaintiff acted unreasonably in rejecting the defendants' settlement offers; indemnity costs were therefore ordered from 24 March 2011 for the action and from 26 July 2012 for the cross action.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Civil Proceedings / On the Papers After Judgment for the Defendants and Cross Claimants
Outcome
Indemnity costs ordered in favour of the defendants and cross-claimants.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'costs Following the Event' 'dishonest or Fabricated Claim' 'cross Claim Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'costs Following the Event' 'dishonest or Fabricated Claim' 'cross Claim 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

Costs Determination in Civil Proceedings / On the Papers After Judgment for the Defendants and Cross Claimants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should receive indemnity costs in respect of the plaintiff's action from 24 March 2011 rather than only from 28 November 2012." 'Whether the defendants should receive indemnity costs in respect of the cross action from 26 July 2012.' "Whether rejection of the defendants' settlement offers was unreasonable in circumstances where the statement of claim and defence to cross-claim had no honest basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's action was brought when the plaintiff, through Mr Tomazin, knew the essential factual basis of its claim was false, and its defence to the cross action also lacked any honest basis. In those circumstances the defendants were prima facie entitled to indemnity costs, and the plaintiff acted unreasonably in rejecting the defendants' settlement offers; indemnity costs were therefore ordered from 24 March 2011 for the action and from 26 July 2012 for the cross action.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs ordered in favour of the defendants and cross-claimants.

Orders

  • ['In respect of its action the plaintiff to pay the defendants the costs of and incidental to the proceeding, from 24 March 2011 (including as to the question of costs) on an indemnity basis.' "In respect of the cross action the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the proceedings, from 26...