Secure Parking Pty Limited v Ralan Property Services Pty Limited (No 1) [2018] NSWSC 660

Secure Parking Pty Limited v Ralan Property Services Pty Limited (No 1) [2018] NSWSC 660

Leave was refused because the principal issue concerning any potential conflict between the Local Court practice note and the rules on offers of compromise had already been addressed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the proposed grounds did not establish error of principle or sufficient merit, and the modest quantum involved was disproportionate to the costs of the leave application. The Magistrate had identified and applied the substance of the r 42.15A task, was entitled to consider the reasonableness of Ralan's rejection of the offer and Secure Parking's conduct, and gave adequate reasons.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order of the Local Court of New South Wales / Summons and Cross Summons for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal sought in the summons refused; summons dismissed; leave to appeal sought in the cross-summons refused; cross-summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'costs Orders' 'offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'local Court Costs Cap' 'practice Note LC Div 1' 'sanderson Order']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal' 'costs Orders' 'offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'local Court Costs Cap' 'practice Note LC Div 1' 'sanderson Order']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order of the Local Court of New South Wales / Summons and Cross Summons for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal a Local Court costs order where leave was required under s 40(2)(c) of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) and, for some grounds, under s 40(1).' 'Whether the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle concerning a potential conflict between Practice Note LC Div 1 and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) provisions on offers of compromise.' "Whether the Magistrate erred in declining to order indemnity costs in favour of Secure Parking after Ralan did not accept Secure Parking's offer of compromise." 'Whether the proposed grounds disclosed error of principle, denial of procedural fairness, or failure to give reasons sufficient to warrant leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the principal issue concerning any potential conflict between the Local Court practice note and the rules on offers of compromise had already been addressed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the proposed grounds did not establish error of principle or sufficient merit, and the modest quantum involved was disproportionate to the costs of the leave application. The Magistrate had identified and applied the substance of the r 42.15A task, was entitled to consider the reasonableness of Ralan's rejection of the offer and Secure Parking's conduct, and gave adequate reasons.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal sought in the summons refused; summons dismissed; leave to appeal sought in the cross-summons refused; cross-summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal sought in the summons refused; summons dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal sought in the cross-summons refused; cross-summons dismissed.']