Bajic v Paraskevopoulos [2018] NSWCATAP 205

Bajic v Paraskevopoulos [2018] NSWCATAP 205

Because the appeal involved more than $30,000, the respondents were successful, and there was no reason to displace the usual costs rule, the appellant was required to pay the respondents' costs up to and including 26 June 2018. After that date, indemnity costs were appropriate because the respondents made a Calderbank Offer containing a real compromise, the offer identified the weaknesses in the appeal, the appellant was legally represented and had sufficient time and information to assess it, and no contrary explanation was provided for rejecting it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Appeal / After Dismissal of Appeal; Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The respondents' costs application was granted.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'ncat Appeal Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals' 'home Building Disputes'] ['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Costs' 'costs Follow the Event' 'ncat Appeal 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

Costs Application in Appeal / After Dismissal of Appeal; Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should pay the respondents' costs of the appeal up to and including 26 June 2018 on the ordinary basis." "Whether the appellant should pay the respondents' costs of the appeal after 26 June 2018 on the indemnity basis because of a Calderbank Offer."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appeal involved more than $30,000, the respondents were successful, and there was no reason to displace the usual costs rule, the appellant was required to pay the respondents' costs up to and including 26 June 2018. After that date, indemnity costs were appropriate because the respondents made a Calderbank Offer containing a real compromise, the offer identified the weaknesses in the appeal, the appellant was legally represented and had sufficient time and information to assess it, and no contrary explanation was provided for rejecting it.

Court Disposition

The respondents' costs application was granted.

Orders

  • ["The appellant is to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal up to and including 26 June 2018 as agreed or as assessed." "The appellant is to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal thereafter on the indemnity basis as agreed or as assessed."]