CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Shining Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1562

CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Shining Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1562

The third and fourth defendants were entitled to indemnity costs because they served an offer of compromise on 23 July 2019, the plaintiff did not dispute its validity or capacity for acceptance, and they obtained an outcome no less favourable than the offer. Although the plaintiff may have reasonably maintained its construction arguments and may not have acted unreasonably in rejecting the offer, reasonableness alone did not displace the UCPR presumption, and there was nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary justifying an order otherwise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs / Decision on Costs on the Papers Consequent Upon Orders Made in Relation to the Plaintiff's Claim
Outcome
The third and fourth defendants are entitled to indemnity costs from 23 July 2019.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'reasonableness of Rejecting Offers' 'exceptional Case']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'reasonableness of Rejecting Offers' 'exceptional Case']

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 / Decision on Costs on the Papers Consequent Upon Orders Made in Relation to the Plaintiff's Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the third and fourth defendants were entitled to indemnity costs from 23 July 2019 by reason of an offer of compromise served under r 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the Court should order otherwise under r 42.15A despite the third and fourth defendants obtaining an order or judgment no less favourable than the terms of the offer.' 'Whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff not to accept the offer of compromise and whether any such reasonableness displaced the presumption of indemnity costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The third and fourth defendants were entitled to indemnity costs because they served an offer of compromise on 23 July 2019, the plaintiff did not dispute its validity or capacity for acceptance, and they obtained an outcome no less favourable than the offer. Although the plaintiff may have reasonably maintained its construction arguments and may not have acted unreasonably in rejecting the offer, reasonableness alone did not displace the UCPR presumption, and there was nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary justifying an order otherwise.

Court Disposition

The third and fourth defendants are entitled to indemnity costs from 23 July 2019.

Orders

  • ['The third and fourth defendants are entitled to indemnity costs from 23 July 2019.']