Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Altair Investments Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1138

Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Altair Investments Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1138

The plaintiffs' summary judgment motion never had any prospect of success because the eighth and ninth defendants had an obvious defence to the claim for payment of the Amount and the remaining interest and costs claims were inadequately pleaded; its filing as a tactical response was delinquent conduct warranting indemnity costs. The plaintiffs' persistence with the pleaded case after the 15 May Letter did not by itself warrant indemnity costs on the eighth and ninth defendants' motion, but rejection of the cogent 10 June Offer was unreasonable because the eighth and ninth defendants achieved a result in effect identical to that offer. A gross sum costs order could fairly be made,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Equity Applications List / Determination of Costs Following Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion Dated 29 May 2020 and Costs Orders on the Eighth and Ninth Defendants' Notice of Motion Dated 21 May 2020
Outcome
Indemnity costs ordered in part; gross sum costs order made; costs payable forthwith.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'summary Dismissal' 'summary Judgment' 'calderbank Offer' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Payable Forthwith' 'summary Dismissal' 'summary Judgment' 'calderbank Offer' 'overriding Purpose']

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 Applications List / Determination of Costs Following Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion Dated 29 May 2020 and Costs Orders on the Eighth and Ninth Defendants' Notice of Motion Dated 21 May 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the eighth and ninth defendants' costs of the plaintiffs' notice of motion dated 29 May 2020 should be paid on the indemnity basis." "Whether the eighth and ninth defendants' costs of their notice of motion dated 21 May 2020 should be paid on the indemnity basis, including by reason of the plaintiffs' rejection of the 10 June Offer." 'Whether a gross sum costs order should be made instead of assessed costs.' 'Whether the costs should be payable forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' summary judgment motion never had any prospect of success because the eighth and ninth defendants had an obvious defence to the claim for payment of the Amount and the remaining interest and costs claims were inadequately pleaded; its filing as a tactical response was delinquent conduct warranting indemnity costs. The plaintiffs' persistence with the pleaded case after the 15 May Letter did not by itself warrant indemnity costs on the eighth and ninth defendants' motion, but rejection of the cogent 10 June Offer was unreasonable because the eighth and ninth defendants achieved a result in effect identical to that offer. A gross sum costs order could fairly be made,...

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs ordered in part; gross sum costs order made; costs payable forthwith.

Orders

  • ['Vacate order 4 made on 9 July 2020.' "The plaintiffs are to pay forthwith the eighth and ninth defendants' costs of the eighth and ninth defendants' notice of motion dated 21 May 2020 on the ordinary basis up to and including 16 June 2020 and on the indemnity basis thereafter." "The plaintiffs are to pay forthwith...