Deane Projects Building Pty Ltd v Kinda Kapers Holdings Pty Ltd (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 222

Deane Projects Building Pty Ltd v Kinda Kapers Holdings Pty Ltd (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 222

Deane Projects Building Pty Ltd obtained a more favourable outcome on the statement of claim than the proposed judgment for Kinda Kapers Holdings Pty Ltd and was put to the expense of proving that claim, so each party should bear its own costs on the statement of claim. The rules offer was invalid because, given its proximity to the hearing and its rolled-up treatment of two claims whose quantum was later determined by a referee, it did not give Deane Projects Building Pty Ltd a reasonable basis or period to assess the offer. It was also not unreasonable to reject the Calderbank offer because the compromise was one-sided and Kinda Kapers Holdings Pty Ltd only bettered its cross-claim...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Application / On the Papers Following Judgment and Adoption of Referee's Report
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs refused; ordinary costs ordered on the cross-claim; each party to bear its own costs on the statement of claim.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'security for Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 20.26']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'security for Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 20.26']

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

Civil Costs Application / On the Papers Following Judgment and Adoption of Referee's Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs orders should be made on the statement of claim and cross-claim from 25 September 2020.' 'Whether the offer of compromise was valid under r 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether it was unreasonable for Deane Projects Building Pty Ltd to reject the Calderbank offer so as to justify indemnity costs.' 'Whether security for costs should be released before completion of costs assessment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Deane Projects Building Pty Ltd obtained a more favourable outcome on the statement of claim than the proposed judgment for Kinda Kapers Holdings Pty Ltd and was put to the expense of proving that claim, so each party should bear its own costs on the statement of claim. The rules offer was invalid because, given its proximity to the hearing and its rolled-up treatment of two claims whose quantum was later determined by a referee, it did not give Deane Projects Building Pty Ltd a reasonable basis or period to assess the offer. It was also not unreasonable to reject the Calderbank offer because the compromise was one-sided and Kinda Kapers Holdings Pty Ltd only bettered its cross-claim...

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs refused; ordinary costs ordered on the cross-claim; each party to bear its own costs on the statement of claim.

Orders

  • ['Each party should bear their own costs on the statement of claim.' "Deane Projects is to pay Kinda Kapers' costs on the cross-claim on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed."]