OXLADE v GOSBRIDGE PTY LTD & ORS (NO 2) [1999] NSWCA 165

OXLADE v GOSBRIDGE PTY LTD & ORS (NO 2) [1999] NSWCA 165

The appellant's offer was clear and capable of response despite being inter-dependent with the plaintiff's acceptance; had the respondents accepted, the District Court trial would not have been necessary. The respondents' silence and the asserted difficulty of the case did not justify an order displacing Pt 19A r9(5). The appellant, having obtained a result no less favourable than her offer, was entitled to indemnity costs from 21 November 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Costs Application Concerning an Offer of Compromise Under District Court Rules Pt 19 a / After Appeal Allowed; Application to Amend Costs Order for Proceedings Below to Indemnity Costs From 21 November 1995
Outcome
Costs order amended
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'district Court Rules Part 19 A' 'discretion to Otherwise Order' 'composite or Conditional Offer']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'district Court Rules Part 19 A' 'discretion to Otherwise Order' 'composite or Conditional Offer']

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

Court of Appeal Costs Application Concerning an Offer of Compromise Under District Court Rules Pt 19 a / After Appeal Allowed; Application to Amend Costs Order for Proceedings Below to Indemnity Costs From 21 November 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant, having bettered an unaccepted offer of compromise, was entitled under Pt 19A r9(5) to indemnity costs from 21 November 1995.' 'Whether the Court should otherwise order because the offer was composite or conditional on acceptance by other parties.' "Whether the respondents' failure to accept the offer was justified because the case was difficult."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's offer was clear and capable of response despite being inter-dependent with the plaintiff's acceptance; had the respondents accepted, the District Court trial would not have been necessary. The respondents' silence and the asserted difficulty of the case did not justify an order displacing Pt 19A r9(5). The appellant, having obtained a result no less favourable than her offer, was entitled to indemnity costs from 21 November 1995.

Court Disposition

Costs order amended

Orders

  • ["Order 3 announced on 18 December 1998 amended by adding the words '(such costs to be paid on an indemnity basis from 21 November 1995)' after the word 'costs'."]