BARESIC v. SLINGSHOT HOLDINGS PTY. LIMITED & ANOR (NO. 2) [2005] NSWCA 160

BARESIC v. SLINGSHOT HOLDINGS PTY. LIMITED & ANOR (NO. 2) [2005] NSWCA 160

The appellant's offer of compromise made during the trial was genuine, providing a meaningful discount to the amount awarded, and no exceptional circumstances or injustice justified departing from the usual rule that costs from after the offer should be on a solicitor-client basis. On appeal, because no fresh offer was made, only party-party costs should be ordered.

Parties
Appellant: Anita Baresic; First Respondent: Slingshot Holdings Pty. Limited; Second Respondent: Funtime Industries Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Successful Appeal
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay appellant's costs as set out in the orders.
Legal Topics
Costs, Offer of Compromise, Negligence, Appellate Procedure
Civil Procedure Costs Offer of Compromise Negligence Appellate Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anita Baresic

Appellant

Slingshot Holdings Pty. Limited

First Respondent

Funtime Industries Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Successful Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to costs on a solicitor-client or indemnity basis following a successful appeal
  2. 2 Whether the offer of compromise made during the District Court proceedings was genuine and its consequences for costs
  3. 3 Whether there were exceptional circumstances or substantial injustice justifying a departure from the usual costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's offer of compromise made during the trial was genuine, providing a meaningful discount to the amount awarded, and no exceptional circumstances or injustice justified departing from the usual rule that costs from after the offer should be on a solicitor-client basis. On appeal, because no fresh offer was made, only party-party costs should be ordered.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay appellant's costs as set out in the orders.

Orders

  • The respondents pay the appellant's costs of the District Court proceedings up to and inclusive of 16 January 2004 on a party-party basis.
  • The respondents pay the appellant's costs of the District Court proceedings from 17 January 2004 on a solicitor-client basis.