Hardy Bros v Hardy Bros [2008] NSWSC 1220

Hardy Bros v Hardy Bros [2008] NSWSC 1220

The plaintiffs did not discharge the onus of showing a sufficient or significant change in circumstances to justify withdrawal of the offer, as the significance of Mr Nowak's evidence could not be assessed without evidence of the quantum of the claim to which it was relevant. Discretionary and prejudice considerations, even if relevant, did not support granting the relief sought.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Hardy Bros (Earthmoving) Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Christopher Mel Chamberlain; First Defendant: Hardy Bros Civil Constructions Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Hardy Bros Nominees Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Robert Leslie Hardy; Fourth Defendant: Danny John Hardy; Fifth Defendant: Evelyn Hardy; Sixth Defendant: Lynette Hardy; Seventh Defendant: Leslie Angus Holmes; Eighth Defendant: John Keenan; Ninth Defendant: Holmes Keenan Turnell Pty Ltd; Tenth Defendant: LA Holmes Nominees Pty Ltd; Eleventh Defendant: JP Keenan Nominees Pty Ltd; Twelfth Defendant: HKT Class Nominees Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Plaintiffs' notice of motion to withdraw the offer of compromise dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Offer of Compromise, Withdrawal of Offer, Material Change in Circumstances
Civil Procedure Offer of Compromise Withdrawal of Offer Material Change in Circumstances

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hardy Bros (Earthmoving) Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Christopher Mel Chamberlain

Second Plaintiff

Hardy Bros Civil Constructions Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Hardy Bros Nominees Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Robert Leslie Hardy

Third Defendant

Danny John Hardy

Fourth Defendant

Evelyn Hardy

Fifth Defendant

Lynette Hardy

Sixth Defendant

Leslie Angus Holmes

Seventh Defendant

John Keenan

Eighth Defendant

Holmes Keenan Turnell Pty Ltd

Ninth Defendant

LA Holmes Nominees Pty Ltd

Tenth Defendant

JP Keenan Nominees Pty Ltd

Eleventh Defendant

HKT Class Nominees Pty Ltd

Twelfth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to withdraw an offer of compromise before expiry of the period for acceptance under UCPR r 20.26.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs did not discharge the onus of showing a sufficient or significant change in circumstances to justify withdrawal of the offer, as the significance of Mr Nowak's evidence could not be assessed without evidence of the quantum of the claim to which it was relevant. Discretionary and prejudice considerations, even if relevant, did not support granting the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' notice of motion to withdraw the offer of compromise dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' notice of motion filed on 4 November 2008 dismissed with costs.
  • Exhibits on the application and documents marked for identification to be returned.