SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323

SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323

By majority, Pt 19A r 10 applied so Pt 39A r 25 did not give SMEC's offer the costs consequences claimed. The applicable discretion was the general costs discretion under Pt 39 r 1A. In the circumstances of the multi-party litigation, SMEC's offers did not compromise the Council's claims against all Third Party Defendants or substantially resolve the whole litigation, and the Council did not act unreasonably in failing to accept them. SMEC therefore showed no persuasive reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, and the order that SMEC pay the Council's costs was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Costs Orders / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Costs Orders Argued as an Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; by majority, appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Letter' 'costs Follow the Event' 'multi Party Litigation' 'district Court Rules']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Letter' 'costs Follow the Event' 'multi Party Litigation' 'district Court Rules']

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

Appeal Concerning Costs Orders / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Costs Orders Argued as an Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the District Court costs discretion was exercised by reference to the wrong rule.' "Whether SMEC's offer of compromise or Calderbank letter warranted departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event." "Whether Pt 19A r 10 of the District Court Rules prevented Pt 39A r 25 from applying to SMEC's offer." "Whether the Council acted unreasonably in not accepting SMEC's offers in multi-party proceedings involving Normak, the Council, and three Third Party Defendants."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, Pt 19A r 10 applied so Pt 39A r 25 did not give SMEC's offer the costs consequences claimed. The applicable discretion was the general costs discretion under Pt 39 r 1A. In the circumstances of the multi-party litigation, SMEC's offers did not compromise the Council's claims against all Third Party Defendants or substantially resolve the whole litigation, and the Council did not act unreasonably in failing to accept them. SMEC therefore showed no persuasive reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, and the order that SMEC pay the Council's costs was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; by majority, appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed with costs.']