Taylor v Clientel Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWCATAP 240

Taylor v Clientel Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWCATAP 240

Rule 38 applied to the appeal costs because the first instance costs provisions differed from s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and the amount in dispute in the appeal exceeded $30,000. The appellant was overall successful because she succeeded in setting aside the orders in HB 18/52740, but she failed in relation to HB 18/46172 and on most appeal grounds. The Calderbank offer did not justify indemnity costs because the respondent did not end up worse off than if it had accepted the offer. Ground 7, with consequential partial success on Ground 8, was separable and did not occupy a significant amount of hearing time, while the unsuccessful grounds occupied a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in an Internal Appeal / Costs of the Appeal Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The appellant was awarded 20% of her costs of the appeal; indemnity costs were refused, and the costs issue was determined on the papers without a hearing.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'internal Appeal Costs' 'costs Following Mixed Success']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Proceedings'] ['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'internal Appeal Costs' 'costs Following Mixed Success']

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 an Internal Appeal / Costs of the Appeal Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Appeal Panel should dispense with a hearing and determine costs on the papers pursuant to section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether Rule 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 applied to the costs of the internal appeal through Rule 38A.' 'Whether the appellant should receive indemnity costs based on the Calderbank offer dated 23 March 2020.' 'Whether and how costs should be apportioned where the appellant succeeded on some appeal grounds but failed on others.']

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 38 applied to the appeal costs because the first instance costs provisions differed from s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and the amount in dispute in the appeal exceeded $30,000. The appellant was overall successful because she succeeded in setting aside the orders in HB 18/52740, but she failed in relation to HB 18/46172 and on most appeal grounds. The Calderbank offer did not justify indemnity costs because the respondent did not end up worse off than if it had accepted the offer. Ground 7, with consequential partial success on Ground 8, was separable and did not occupy a significant amount of hearing time, while the unsuccessful grounds occupied a...

Court Disposition

The appellant was awarded 20% of her costs of the appeal; indemnity costs were refused, and the costs issue was determined on the papers without a hearing.

Orders

  • ['A hearing in respect of the question of costs of the appeal is dispensed with pursuant to section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Clientel Developments Pty Ltd must pay Bianca Taylor 20% of her costs of the appeal, such costs if not agreed to be assessed on the basis set out in Division...