Snowden v Australian Mortgage Assist Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 276

Snowden v Australian Mortgage Assist Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 276

Although the plaintiffs' claim was characterised as weak, the outcome depended significantly on whether the Court accepted the plaintiffs' account of conversations and there was no evidence of the costs actually incurred by the second defendant when the offer was made. In those circumstances, the Court was not satisfied that the offer was a genuine offer of compromise, so the costs order made on 17 December 2019 should not be varied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers; Application by the Second Defendant to Vary the Costs Order After Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Claim
Outcome
Application to vary the costs order refused.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'genuine Offer of Compromise' 'variation of Costs Order']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'genuine Offer of Compromise' 'variation of Costs 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs / On the Papers; Application by the Second Defendant to Vary the Costs Order After Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second defendant's offer of compromise dated 26 September 2019 was a genuine offer of compromise" "Whether the costs order made on 17 December 2019 should be varied so that the plaintiffs pay the second defendant's costs on the ordinary basis before 22 October 2019 and on an indemnity basis on and from that date"]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs' claim was characterised as weak, the outcome depended significantly on whether the Court accepted the plaintiffs' account of conversations and there was no evidence of the costs actually incurred by the second defendant when the offer was made. In those circumstances, the Court was not satisfied that the offer was a genuine offer of compromise, so the costs order made on 17 December 2019 should not be varied.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the costs order refused.

Orders

  • ['The costs order made on 17 December 2019 not be varied']