Gorman v Parkinson [2009] NSWIRComm 174

Gorman v Parkinson [2009] NSWIRComm 174

Mrs Gorman obtained an order on the claim to which the 10 April 2006 offer of compromise related that was no less favourable than the offer. Although the compensation included an element for work-in-progress not specifically contemplated by the parties, that arose from the Court's task in s 106 proceedings of determining just consequential relief after finding unfairness, and was not a sufficient reason to displace the prima facie indemnity costs consequence under rule 216(4). Interest was appropriate from 22 June 2004, when the unfairness and variation operated, to 24 June 2009, excluding a three-month period attributable to delay caused by amendment of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract Proceedings / Judgment on Costs and Interest After Judgment on the Substantive S 106 Application
Outcome
The Court ordered indemnity costs from 10 April 2006 and interest on the compensation awarded, excluding the period 5 May 2008 to 4 August 2008.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract Proceedings' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'compensation Under S 106(5)' 'interest on Monetary Compensation']
['industrial Relations' 'costs' 'interest'] ['unfair Contract Proceedings' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'compensation Under S 106(5)' 'interest on Monetary Compensation']

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

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Unfair Contract Proceedings / Judgment on Costs and Interest After Judgment on the Substantive S 106 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant obtained an order on the claim no less favourable than the terms of the offer of compromise so as to attract indemnity costs under rule 216(4) of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules.' 'Whether the inclusion of work-in-progress in the compensation calculation, although not specifically claimed, was a reason to displace the prima facie indemnity costs consequence of the offer of compromise.' 'Whether interest should be awarded on the compensation and for what period.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Gorman obtained an order on the claim to which the 10 April 2006 offer of compromise related that was no less favourable than the offer. Although the compensation included an element for work-in-progress not specifically contemplated by the parties, that arose from the Court's task in s 106 proceedings of determining just consequential relief after finding unfairness, and was not a sufficient reason to displace the prima facie indemnity costs consequence under rule 216(4). Interest was appropriate from 22 June 2004, when the unfairness and variation operated, to 24 June 2009, excluding a three-month period attributable to delay caused by amendment of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

The Court ordered indemnity costs from 10 April 2006 and interest on the compensation awarded, excluding the period 5 May 2008 to 4 August 2008.

Orders

  • ["The respondent parties against whom orders for the payment of monies have been made are to pay Mrs Gorman's costs of the proceedings, assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004 in default of agreement and calculated on an indemnity basis as and from 10 April 2006." 'The same respondent parties are to pay...