DOMINELLO v DOMINELLO & ANOR; DOMINELLO v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT & ANOR [NO 2] [2009] NSWCA 257

DOMINELLO v DOMINELLO & ANOR; DOMINELLO v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT & ANOR [NO 2] [2009] NSWCA 257

A Bullock or Sanderson order was refused because, although it was reasonable and prudent for the plaintiff to sue both the driver and the Nominal Defendant, the claims were independent and not alternative or interdependent, the Nominal Defendant did not create the uncertainty requiring joinder, knew no more about the accident than the plaintiff, and engaged in no conduct beyond denial of liability that made it fair to impose liability for the successful driver's costs. Indemnity costs against the Nominal Defendant were ordered from after 22 July 2007 because that order was not opposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Consequential on Court of Appeal Judgment in a Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accident Proceeding / On the Papers; Notice of Motion Seeking Indemnity Costs and a Bullock or Sanderson Order After Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Costs order varied; indemnity costs awarded against the Nominal Defendant from after 22 July 2007; application for Bullock or Sanderson order refused; notice of motion otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sanderson Order' 'bullock Order' 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'nominal Defendant' 'alternative or Interdependent Liability']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'motor Accidents'] ['sanderson Order' 'bullock Order' 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'nominal Defendant' 'alternative or Interdependent Liability']

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 Consequential on Court of Appeal Judgment in a Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accident Proceeding / On the Papers; Notice of Motion Seeking Indemnity Costs and a Bullock or Sanderson Order After Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Nominal Defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis from the date of the plaintiff's formal Offer of Compromise." 'Whether the Nominal Defendant should bear the costs of the successful first defendant by a Bullock or Sanderson order.' "Whether the plaintiff's claims against the driver and the Nominal Defendant were alternative or interdependent, and whether the Nominal Defendant's conduct made it fair to impose liability for the successful defendant's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

A Bullock or Sanderson order was refused because, although it was reasonable and prudent for the plaintiff to sue both the driver and the Nominal Defendant, the claims were independent and not alternative or interdependent, the Nominal Defendant did not create the uncertainty requiring joinder, knew no more about the accident than the plaintiff, and engaged in no conduct beyond denial of liability that made it fair to impose liability for the successful driver's costs. Indemnity costs against the Nominal Defendant were ordered from after 22 July 2007 because that order was not opposed.

Court Disposition

Costs order varied; indemnity costs awarded against the Nominal Defendant from after 22 July 2007; application for Bullock or Sanderson order refused; notice of motion otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Vacate the order made on 8 May 2009 that the Nominal Defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the action." "In lieu thereof substitute orders that the Nominal Defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the action on the ordinary basis until and including 22 July 2007 and thereafter on the indemnity basis." 'Notice of...