Sedrak v Starr (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 1193

Sedrak v Starr (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 1193

Because the amended judgment on the first cross-claim exceeded the offer made under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 42 r 42.14 applied and Mr Starr was entitled to indemnity costs; Mr Sedrak did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify denying that entitlement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs Ruling / Ex Tempore Judgment After Judgment on Cross Claim, Including Slip Rule Amendment and Costs
Outcome
Indemnity costs ordered.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise Not Accepted' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'slip Rule']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise Not Accepted' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'slip Rule']

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 Ruling / Ex Tempore Judgment After Judgment on Cross Claim, Including Slip Rule Amendment and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraph 79 should be amended under the slip rule to include the balance of the deposit in the judgment sum.' 'Whether Pt 42 r 42.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 entitled Mr Starr to indemnity costs after an offer was not accepted and judgment was more favourable to him.' 'Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify refusing indemnity costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the amended judgment on the first cross-claim exceeded the offer made under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 42 r 42.14 applied and Mr Starr was entitled to indemnity costs; Mr Sedrak did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify denying that entitlement.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs ordered.

Orders

  • ['Paragraph 79 was amended under the slip rule by substituting $320,677.71 for $119,427.71.' 'The orders in the short minutes of order initialled and dated by the judge were made.']