Strel v Cordia (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 18

Strel v Cordia (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 18

Although Ms Strel succeeded and obtained orders no less favourable than her unaccepted offers, Mr Cordia's conduct was not so unreasonable or lacking in merit as to justify indemnity costs. The Court ordered otherwise under the UCPR because a significant component of Ms Strel's costs against Mr Cordia would likely have been incurred in any event to obtain registration of title, the offer on the claim involved only modest compromise, and the walk away offer on the cross-claim did little to encourage settlement and was effectively an invitation to capitulate in a case not fairly described as frivolous or vexatious. Mr Cordia was therefore to pay Ms Strel's costs of the proceedings, other...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Proceedings Concerning Ownership of a Property in Petersham / On the Papers After Final Orders on All Issues Other Than Costs
Outcome
First defendant/cross-claimant ordered to pay the plaintiff/first cross-defendant's costs of the proceedings, other than in respect of the application for costs, on the ordinary basis; indemnity costs refused.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'adverse Possession' 'ordinary Basis Costs']
['costs' 'equity' 'property Law'] ['indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'adverse Possession' 'ordinary Basis 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 Application in Equity Proceedings Concerning Ownership of a Property in Petersham / On the Papers After Final Orders on All Issues Other Than Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Cordia's conduct in connection with the proceedings was so unreasonable or lacking in merit as to justify an indemnity costs order." 'Whether Ms Strel was entitled to indemnity costs from 28 November 2015 because Mr Cordia failed to accept offers of compromise made on 27 November 2015.' 'Whether the Court should order otherwise under UCPR r 42.14 and r 42.15A despite Ms Strel obtaining orders no less favourable than the offers.' 'Whether the offers involved sufficient compromise to warrant indemnity costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Ms Strel succeeded and obtained orders no less favourable than her unaccepted offers, Mr Cordia's conduct was not so unreasonable or lacking in merit as to justify indemnity costs. The Court ordered otherwise under the UCPR because a significant component of Ms Strel's costs against Mr Cordia would likely have been incurred in any event to obtain registration of title, the offer on the claim involved only modest compromise, and the walk away offer on the cross-claim did little to encourage settlement and was effectively an invitation to capitulate in a case not fairly described as frivolous or vexatious. Mr Cordia was therefore to pay Ms Strel's costs of the proceedings, other...

Court Disposition

First defendant/cross-claimant ordered to pay the plaintiff/first cross-defendant's costs of the proceedings, other than in respect of the application for costs, on the ordinary basis; indemnity costs refused.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant/cross-claimant is ordered to pay the plaintiff/first cross-defendant's costs of the proceedings, other than in respect of the application for costs, on the ordinary basis." 'Ms Strel should bear her own costs of the application for costs.']