Egan v Egan (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 282

Egan v Egan (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 282

No order as to costs was appropriate because neither party established that the other's refusal of a Calderbank offer was unreasonable, and the substantive outcome was mixed: the plaintiff established default and the continuing existence of the contract but did not obtain possession or immediate repayment, while the defendant failed on her principal sham case but obtained variation of the contract under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Claim for Possession of Land and Cross Claim Concerning Loan Deed and Mortgage / Costs After Principal Judgment
Outcome
No order as to costs on either the statement of claim or the cross-claim, to the intent that each party should bear her own costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'claim for Possession of Land' 'sham Transaction' 'unjust Contract' 'contracts Review Act']
['procedure' 'costs' 'contracts'] ['calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'claim for Possession of Land' 'sham Transaction' 'unjust Contract' 'contracts Review Act']

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 Determination Following Claim for Possession of Land and Cross Claim Concerning Loan Deed and Mortgage / Costs After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should receive indemnity costs on the cross-claim from 24 January 2018 by reason of her Calderbank offer dated 23 January 2018.' 'Whether the defendant should receive ordinary costs and indemnity costs by reason of her Calderbank offer dated 3 May 2017.' "Whether either party acted unreasonably in not accepting the other party's Calderbank offer." 'What costs order was appropriate given the mixed outcome of the statement of claim and cross-claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

No order as to costs was appropriate because neither party established that the other's refusal of a Calderbank offer was unreasonable, and the substantive outcome was mixed: the plaintiff established default and the continuing existence of the contract but did not obtain possession or immediate repayment, while the defendant failed on her principal sham case but obtained variation of the contract under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).

Court Disposition

No order as to costs on either the statement of claim or the cross-claim, to the intent that each party should bear her own costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['No order as to costs on either the statement of claim or the cross-claim to the intent that each party should bear her own costs of the proceedings.']