Damirdjian, A v Nominal Defendant & Zaya; Damirdjian, C v Nominal Defendant & Zaya [2022] NSWDC 52
The Nominal Defendant was the successful party against both plaintiffs and was entitled to costs, subject to its concession in Armin Damirdjian's case and indemnity costs after the relevant offer of compromise. The plaintiffs succeeded against Mr Zaya, so he was liable for their costs against him; Christina Damirdjian was entitled to indemnity costs after her genuine offer of compromise because her judgment exceeded the offer. The second defendant was not liable for costs relating to the Nominal Defendant before the plaintiffs' relevant doubt about whom to sue arose, but from the time he filed defences contesting liability on 2 September 2020 it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Determination in Civil Personal Injury Damages Proceedings Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / After Judgments Delivered on 21 December 2021 in Which Each Plaintiff Failed Against the Nominal Defendant and Succeeded Against the Second Defendant
- Outcome
- Costs orders made for the Nominal Defendant against the plaintiffs, for the plaintiffs against the second defendant, and for the second defendant to bear specified costs liabilities to the Nominal Defendant from 3 September 2020.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs Following the Event' 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'sanderson Orders' 'bullock Orders' 'nominal Defendant' 'joinder of Alternative Defendants']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Civil Personal Injury Damages Proceedings Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / After Judgments Delivered on 21 December 2021 in Which Each Plaintiff Failed Against the Nominal Defendant and Succeeded Against the Second Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Nominal Defendant should recover costs from the plaintiffs after the plaintiffs failed against it' 'Whether indemnity costs were justified by offers of compromise' "Whether the second defendant should pay the plaintiffs' costs of proceedings against him" "Whether Sanderson or Bullock orders were justified in respect of the plaintiffs' liability for the Nominal Defendant's costs" 'From what date any liability of the second defendant for costs relating to the Nominal Defendant should commence']
Ratio Decidendi
The Nominal Defendant was the successful party against both plaintiffs and was entitled to costs, subject to its concession in Armin Damirdjian's case and indemnity costs after the relevant offer of compromise. The plaintiffs succeeded against Mr Zaya, so he was liable for their costs against him; Christina Damirdjian was entitled to indemnity costs after her genuine offer of compromise because her judgment exceeded the offer. The second defendant was not liable for costs relating to the Nominal Defendant before the plaintiffs' relevant doubt about whom to sue arose, but from the time he filed defences contesting liability on 2 September 2020 it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to...
Court Disposition
Costs orders made for the Nominal Defendant against the plaintiffs, for the plaintiffs against the second defendant, and for the second defendant to bear specified costs liabilities to the Nominal Defendant from 3 September 2020.
Orders
- ["In proceedings numbered 2014/4566 brought by Armin Damirdjian, no order as to costs up to 6 September 2017, but thereafter the plaintiff is to pay the Nominal Defendant's costs on an indemnity basis." "In proceedings numbered 2014/4566, the second defendant Mr Zaya is to pay the plaintiff's costs of proceedings...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment