Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd v David Page [2017] NSWSC 660

Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd v David Page [2017] NSWSC 660

The defendant obtained a judgment no less favourable than its walk away offer of compromise, the offer was genuine and contained a sufficient element of compromise because the defendant offered to forgo substantial costs, and the plaintiff's claim had limited prospects and was of such a character that indemnity costs should be allowed; r 42.15A UCPR was enlivened and no basis was shown to otherwise order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Motion / On the Papers Following Substantive Proceedings Determined in the Defendant's Favour
Outcome
Motion granted; costs order varied in favour of the defendant.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'genuine Offer of Compromise' 'walk Away Offer' 'calderbank Offer']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'genuine Offer of Compromise' 'walk Away Offer' 'calderbank Offer']

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 Motion / On the Papers Following Substantive Proceedings Determined in the Defendant's Favour

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's offer of compromise enlivened r 42.15A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)." 'Whether the offer of compromise was a genuine offer of compromise despite being a walk away offer.' 'Whether the Court should depart from the prima facie position of awarding indemnity costs and otherwise order in favour of the plaintiff.' "Whether the plaintiff's claim was of such a character that indemnity costs should be allowed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant obtained a judgment no less favourable than its walk away offer of compromise, the offer was genuine and contained a sufficient element of compromise because the defendant offered to forgo substantial costs, and the plaintiff's claim had limited prospects and was of such a character that indemnity costs should be allowed; r 42.15A UCPR was enlivened and no basis was shown to otherwise order.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; costs order varied in favour of the defendant.

Orders

  • ["Order 4 made on 16 November 2016 is varied as follows: The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs up to and including 2 June 2016 on the ordinary basis, and from 3 June 2016 on an indemnity basis." 'Costs of this motion on an ordinary basis in favour of the defendant.']