Stavar v Caltex Refineries (Qld)Pty Ltd No 4 [2008] NSWDDT 28

Stavar v Caltex Refineries (Qld)Pty Ltd No 4 [2008] NSWDDT 28

Amaca's 20 June 2008 letter was not effective to invoke the consequences of failure to act on an offer of compromise because its offer of 6.35% failed to consider the contribution to be made by BI Contracting Pty Ltd, a cross-defendant to the Wallaby Grip companies' cross-claim which was not a cross-defendant to Amaca's cross-claim, and referred to cross-defendants plural including one stranger to Amaca's claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings / Ex Tempore Ruling on Amaca Pty Ltd's Application for Costs
Outcome
Amaca's application for its costs is refused.
Legal Topics
['contributions Determination' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'dust Diseases Litigation'] ['contributions Determination' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Dust Diseases Tribunal Proceedings / Ex Tempore Ruling on Amaca Pty Ltd's Application for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Amaca Pty Ltd was entitled to costs from other defendants and a cross-defendant after offering to contribute 6.35% towards settlement of the plaintiff's claim." 'Whether the 20 June 2008 letter was effective to invoke costs consequences under Calderbank principles.']

Ratio Decidendi

Amaca's 20 June 2008 letter was not effective to invoke the consequences of failure to act on an offer of compromise because its offer of 6.35% failed to consider the contribution to be made by BI Contracting Pty Ltd, a cross-defendant to the Wallaby Grip companies' cross-claim which was not a cross-defendant to Amaca's cross-claim, and referred to cross-defendants plural including one stranger to Amaca's claim.

Court Disposition

Amaca's application for its costs is refused.

Orders

  • ["Amaca should pay the first, third, fourth and fifth defendants' costs of this application and the costs of the cross-defendant to its cross-claim, as agreed or assessed."]