Construction & Design Australia Pty Ltd v Robinson (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 504

Construction & Design Australia Pty Ltd v Robinson (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 504

The Owners' limited success on the bowed Rediwall issue was only a small part of a substantially unsuccessful cross-claim and did not justify reducing the Builder's costs. The Calderbank offers did not justify indemnity costs because the first two were made at a very early stage and the Court was not satisfied that rejection of the 29 June 2023 Calderbank offer was unreasonable. However, the 29 June 2023 UCPR offer of compromise was valid: it was properly construed as offering judgment for the Builder for $200,000 on the claim and judgment for the cross-defendants on the cross-claim. The agreed notations to the 19 April 2024 orders allowed comparison between the offer and the result,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Determination on the Papers After Principal Judgment and Consent Orders
Outcome
Defendants/cross-claimants ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff/cross-defendants on the ordinary basis to 29 June 2023 and on an indemnity basis from 30 June 2023.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'cross Claim Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['party/party Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'cross Claim Costs']

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 / Costs Determination on the Papers After Principal Judgment and Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants/cross-claimants should receive any reduction in the costs payable for the substantially unsuccessful cross-claim because they succeeded on rectification of the bowed Rediwall.' 'Whether it was unreasonable for the defendants/cross-claimants not to accept the Calderbank offers dated 23 April 2020, 26 November 2020 and 29 June 2023.' 'Whether the 29 June 2023 offer of compromise was a valid offer under UCPR r 20.26 to compromise the claim and cross-claim.' 'Whether the plaintiff and cross-defendants obtained a result no less favourable than the 29 June 2023 offer of compromise so as to enliven indemnity costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Owners' limited success on the bowed Rediwall issue was only a small part of a substantially unsuccessful cross-claim and did not justify reducing the Builder's costs. The Calderbank offers did not justify indemnity costs because the first two were made at a very early stage and the Court was not satisfied that rejection of the 29 June 2023 Calderbank offer was unreasonable. However, the 29 June 2023 UCPR offer of compromise was valid: it was properly construed as offering judgment for the Builder for $200,000 on the claim and judgment for the cross-defendants on the cross-claim. The agreed notations to the 19 April 2024 orders allowed comparison between the offer and the result,...

Court Disposition

Defendants/cross-claimants ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff/cross-defendants on the ordinary basis to 29 June 2023 and on an indemnity basis from 30 June 2023.

Orders

  • ['The defendants/cross-claimants pay the costs of the plaintiff and the cross-defendants of the claim and the cross-claim on the ordinary basis to 29 June 2023, and on an indemnity basis from 30 June 2023.']