Vollmer v Hauber-Davidson [2005] NSWCA 237

Vollmer v Hauber-Davidson [2005] NSWCA 237

Leave to appeal was granted because the Master erred in principle by putting the plaintiff's unreasonable offers to one side and by failing to take them into account when concluding that the plaintiff was forced to commence proceedings and that the event favoured the plaintiff. When the litigation was viewed broadly and by reference to the offers, the defendant improved her position substantially and was substantially successful; the discretionary costs order therefore miscarried and was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Summons for Leave to Appeal From a Costs Order Made Following Proceedings Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Determined on the Papers in the New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; notice of appeal to be filed within 28 days.
Legal Topics
['property (relationships) Act 1984' 'costs Discretion' 'calderbank Offers' 'leave to Appeal' 'house V the King Principles']
['de Facto Relationships' 'property Relationships' 'costs'] ['property (relationships) Act 1984' 'costs Discretion' 'calderbank Offers' 'leave to Appeal' 'house V the King Principles']

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

Summons for Leave to Appeal From a Costs Order Made Following Proceedings Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Determined on the Papers in the New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the costs order made by Macready M.' "Whether the Master erred in principle by putting the plaintiff's offers to one side when determining costs." 'Whether the Master failed to take relevant considerations into account in characterising the event or result of the litigation for costs purposes.' 'Whether the costs order was unreasonable or plainly unjust.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because the Master erred in principle by putting the plaintiff's unreasonable offers to one side and by failing to take them into account when concluding that the plaintiff was forced to commence proceedings and that the event favoured the plaintiff. When the litigation was viewed broadly and by reference to the offers, the defendant improved her position substantially and was substantially successful; the discretionary costs order therefore miscarried and was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; notice of appeal to be filed within 28 days.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Notice of appeal to be filed within 28 days.']