Huang v Attapallil (No.4) [2018] NSWSC 769

Huang v Attapallil (No.4) [2018] NSWSC 769

The plaintiff's claims against the third defendant were hopeless, had largely mirrored claims already dismissed in the District Court, and were pursued despite clear warnings and an Offer of Compromise that gave adequate time in the circumstances. The plaintiff knew the deficiencies in her proceedings and acted unreasonably in continuing them. The third defendant's claimed costs were supported by evidence, the rates and total were reasonable, and the 15% discount adequately allowed for any items that might not be allowed on assessment. An indemnity costs order and a gross sum costs order of $27,890 were therefore appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Determined on the Papers After Summary Dismissal of the Proceedings; Third Defendant's Application for Indemnity Costs and a Specified Gross Sum Costs Order
Outcome
Third defendant's application granted; indemnity costs order and gross sum costs order made against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'offer of Compromise' 'summary Dismissal' 'civil Procedure Act 2005, S 98(4)(c)']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'offer of Compromise' 'summary Dismissal' 'civil Procedure Act 2005, S 98(4)(c)']

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 / Determined on the Papers After Summary Dismissal of the Proceedings; Third Defendant's Application for Indemnity Costs and a Specified Gross Sum Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the third defendant's costs on an indemnity basis." "Whether the third defendant's Offer of Compromise was a real and genuine offer of compromise and whether the plaintiff acted unreasonably in not accepting it." "Whether the Court should fix the third defendant's costs as a specified gross sum under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005." "Whether the amount of $27,890 was a reasonable gross sum for the third defendant's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claims against the third defendant were hopeless, had largely mirrored claims already dismissed in the District Court, and were pursued despite clear warnings and an Offer of Compromise that gave adequate time in the circumstances. The plaintiff knew the deficiencies in her proceedings and acted unreasonably in continuing them. The third defendant's claimed costs were supported by evidence, the rates and total were reasonable, and the 15% discount adequately allowed for any items that might not be allowed on assessment. An indemnity costs order and a gross sum costs order of $27,890 were therefore appropriate.

Court Disposition

Third defendant's application granted; indemnity costs order and gross sum costs order made against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Order that Order 3 of the Court made 10 November 2017 be amended so as to read: "Order the plaintiff to pay the third defendant\'s costs on an indemnity basis."' "Order that the plaintiff pay the third defendant's costs determined as a gross sum in the amount of $27,890 in accordance with s 98(4)(c) of the Civil...