Brosnan v Katke (No 2) [2015] FCA 386

Brosnan v Katke (No 2) [2015] FCA 386

Because the reasonableness of rejecting the respondents' Calderbank offer was partly informed by the actual and party and party costs the respondents were prepared to absorb, and there was no evidence before the Court on costs quantum, further affidavit evidence from the parties' solicitors was required before the reserved costs question could be determined.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Disposition of Reserved Costs of the Principal Proceeding / Post Judgment Costs Directions Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Costs determination further reserved; directions made for filing and service of affidavits concerning the costs question.
Legal Topics
['reserved Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'affidavit Evidence on Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['reserved Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'affidavit Evidence on 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

Practice and Procedure; Disposition of Reserved Costs of the Principal Proceeding / Post Judgment Costs Directions Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding on an ordinary party and party basis or on an indemnity basis from 17 December 2013 because of the rejected Calderbank offer." 'Whether indemnity costs should alternatively be ordered for defending the claims made at paras 27 and 33-34 of the consolidated third further amended statement of claim.' 'Whether the applicants should receive costs on a party and party basis of proving factual matters asserted in para 10(a) and (b) of the statement of claim.' 'Whether evidence on the quantum of costs was needed before determining the reserved costs questions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the reasonableness of rejecting the respondents' Calderbank offer was partly informed by the actual and party and party costs the respondents were prepared to absorb, and there was no evidence before the Court on costs quantum, further affidavit evidence from the parties' solicitors was required before the reserved costs question could be determined.

Court Disposition

Costs determination further reserved; directions made for filing and service of affidavits concerning the costs question.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 1.32 and r 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, these orders and the reasons for judgment in support of these orders are made and published from Chambers.' 'The respondents file and serve affidavits (if any) upon which they propose to rely in support of their submissions in relation to the...