Dunphy v Russell (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1053
Neither the Calderbank nor the formal offer of compromise constituted a genuine offer of compromise, as both were in substance offers to capitulate and provided only negligible concessions to the defendant. Their rejection was not unreasonable, and the plaintiff is not entitled to indemnity costs.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Brian Patrick Dunphy; Defendant: Michelle Catherine Russell (nee Murphy)
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 July 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Equity / Application for Indemnity Costs Following Substantive Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for indemnity costs dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Indemnity Costs, Offers of Compromise, Calderbank Offers, Costs Discretion
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brian Patrick Dunphy
Plaintiff
Michelle Catherine Russell (nee Murphy)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Equity / Application for Indemnity Costs Following Substantive Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's offers were genuine offers of compromise
- 2 Whether the defendant unreasonably failed to accept the offers
- 3 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded
Ratio Decidendi
Neither the Calderbank nor the formal offer of compromise constituted a genuine offer of compromise, as both were in substance offers to capitulate and provided only negligible concessions to the defendant. Their rejection was not unreasonable, and the plaintiff is not entitled to indemnity costs.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for indemnity costs dismissed.
Orders
- Dismiss the Plaintiff's application for indemnity costs.
- Each party bear his or her costs of the Plaintiff's application.
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