Chaw v Jenkinson [2017] NSWCATAP 150

Chaw v Jenkinson [2017] NSWCATAP 150

Special circumstances exist to justify awarding the Respondents indemnity costs for the remitted proceedings after 3 September 2015, due to Mr Chaw's unreasonable refusal to accept an offer to settle for the full amount of his claim and a release from costs liability. No order is made as to costs for the proceedings before 3 September 2015 or for the appeal, given the absence of a renewed offer post-appeal and the complexity faced by the unrepresented applicant.

Parties
Appellant: Chi Chaw; First Respondent: Karen Leigh Jenkinson; Second Respondent: Coverall Services Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Costs application allowed in part; indemnity costs awarded for period post 3 September 2015, otherwise no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Special Circumstances, Indemnity Costs, Offer to Settle, Unrepresented Litigant
Civil Procedure Costs Special Circumstances Indemnity Costs Offer to Settle Unrepresented Litigant

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chi Chaw

Appellant

Karen Leigh Jenkinson

First Respondent

Coverall Services Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances exist to warrant a departure from the usual rule that each party bear their own costs under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of an offer to settle amounts to special circumstances justifying indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether any costs should be awarded for the appeal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances exist to justify awarding the Respondents indemnity costs for the remitted proceedings after 3 September 2015, due to Mr Chaw's unreasonable refusal to accept an offer to settle for the full amount of his claim and a release from costs liability. No order is made as to costs for the proceedings before 3 September 2015 or for the appeal, given the absence of a renewed offer post-appeal and the complexity faced by the unrepresented applicant.

Court Disposition

Costs application allowed in part; indemnity costs awarded for period post 3 September 2015, otherwise no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Appellant is to pay the Respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceedings determined by Member Cohen on 1 February 2016 incurred after 3 September 2015 on an indemnity basis.
  • Otherwise, there be no order as to the costs of the proceedings referred to in Order 1 and no order as to the costs of the appeal from the decision made by Member Cohen on 1 February 2016.