FD v State of New South Wales & 2 Ors; Armidale & District Women's Centre v Waters (Costs) [2007] NSWSC 78

FD v State of New South Wales & 2 Ors; Armidale & District Women's Centre v Waters (Costs) [2007] NSWSC 78

Considering all the circumstances, indemnity costs were inappropriate because the Centre's application, although unsuccessful, was based on grounds of some substance and the circumstances called for an explanation; the Calderbank offer was hard to accept without further elucidation and did not warrant a special costs order. Ms Waters was entitled only to ordinary party/party costs, excluding the motion of 1 May 2006, and that motion should be dismissed with no order as to costs because the Centre was in breach of directions but the motion was precipitate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Application by Penelope Waters for Indemnity Costs and Determination of Reserved Costs of Motion of 1 May 2006 After Judgment on Costs Issues
Outcome
Indemnity costs refused; ordinary costs order for Ms Waters maintained; motion of 1 May 2006 dismissed with no order as to costs; Ms Waters ordered to pay the Centre's costs of her indemnity costs application.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'solicitor Personal Costs Order' 'costs Thrown Away' 'reserved Costs' 'particulars of Costs Application']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'solicitor Personal Costs Order' 'costs Thrown Away' 'reserved Costs' 'particulars of Costs Application']

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 Application / Application by Penelope Waters for Indemnity Costs and Determination of Reserved Costs of Motion of 1 May 2006 After Judgment on Costs Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Ms Waters should receive indemnity costs in respect of the Centre's unsuccessful application for a personal costs order against her for costs thrown away." 'Whether the motion of 1 May 2006 should be dismissed and what costs order should be made for that motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Considering all the circumstances, indemnity costs were inappropriate because the Centre's application, although unsuccessful, was based on grounds of some substance and the circumstances called for an explanation; the Calderbank offer was hard to accept without further elucidation and did not warrant a special costs order. Ms Waters was entitled only to ordinary party/party costs, excluding the motion of 1 May 2006, and that motion should be dismissed with no order as to costs because the Centre was in breach of directions but the motion was precipitate.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs refused; ordinary costs order for Ms Waters maintained; motion of 1 May 2006 dismissed with no order as to costs; Ms Waters ordered to pay the Centre's costs of her indemnity costs application.

Orders

  • ["The Centre pay the costs of Penelope Waters, including the reserved costs other than those relating to the motion of 1 May 2006, of its application that Penelope Waters pay the Centre's costs thrown away due to the vacation of the hearing date of 4 April 2005 and to the adjournment of the hearing of the Centre's...