Huang v 18 Woodville Holding Pty Ltd; Tao v 18 Woodville Holding Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 207

Huang v 18 Woodville Holding Pty Ltd; Tao v 18 Woodville Holding Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 207

Because 18 Woodville notified the Court and the appellants within the 14-day period that it sought to vary the costs orders, it was appropriate to dispense with the requirement to file a notice of motion. The appeal offers of compromise were not accepted, 18 Woodville obtained relief no less favourable than its offers, the offers involved real concessions, and no circumstances justified departing from the conditional entitlement to indemnity costs from 16 September 2022. The first-instance offer to the Tao appellants did not justify a different appeal costs order because it related only to the costs of the underlying proceedings and did not accommodate appeal costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Appeals / On the Papers After Dismissal of Appeals; Application by First Respondent Under R 36.16(3 A) to Vary Costs Orders
Outcome
Applications granted; costs orders made on 15 February 2023 varied as against 18 Woodville.
Legal Topics
['offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'dispensing With Notice of Motion' 'appeal Costs' 'indefeasibility Exception']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'real Property'] ['offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'dispensing With Notice of Motion' 'appeal Costs' 'indefeasibility Exception']

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

Costs Application in Appeals / On the Papers After Dismissal of Appeals; Application by First Respondent Under R 36.16(3 A) to Vary Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court could set aside or vary entered costs orders where the notice of motion was filed more than 14 days after entry, but notice of the application was given to the Court and other parties within the 14-day period.' 'Whether 18 Woodville was entitled to indemnity costs by reason of offers of compromise made in each appeal and not accepted by the appellants.' 'Whether an offer of compromise made to the Tao appellants in the underlying proceedings justified a different costs order in the Tao appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because 18 Woodville notified the Court and the appellants within the 14-day period that it sought to vary the costs orders, it was appropriate to dispense with the requirement to file a notice of motion. The appeal offers of compromise were not accepted, 18 Woodville obtained relief no less favourable than its offers, the offers involved real concessions, and no circumstances justified departing from the conditional entitlement to indemnity costs from 16 September 2022. The first-instance offer to the Tao appellants did not justify a different appeal costs order because it related only to the costs of the underlying proceedings and did not accommodate appeal costs.

Court Disposition

Applications granted; costs orders made on 15 February 2023 varied as against 18 Woodville.

Orders

  • ['In proceeding 2022/240885, dispense with the requirement in Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 18.2(1) for the filing of a notice of motion by the first respondent (18 Woodville) in respect of its application under r 36.16(3A) to vary the costs orders made on 15 February 2023.' 'In proceeding 2022/240885,...