Ralston v Bell & Smith trading as Xentex Patch & Grout (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 913

Ralston v Bell & Smith trading as Xentex Patch & Grout (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 913

The plaintiff's offer of compromise was valid and not undermined by procedural or evidentiary deficiencies; indemnity costs are justified against the first and fourth defendants from 17 July 2007. Bullock or Sanderson orders are not appropriate due to lack of conduct by first or fourth defendants leading to joinder. Proportional costs order for the fourth defendant is denied due to joint and several liability. Distinguishing costs of estoppel/waiver/admissions is not warranted as the issue was legitimately raised and adjournment served other purposes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Costs Decision
Outcome
Costs orders granted as per judgment.
Legal Topics
['personal Injuries' 'costs' 'construction Site']
['tort' 'common Law'] ['personal Injuries' 'costs' 'construction Site']

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

Civil / Post Trial Costs Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs against first and fourth defendants after offer of compromise' 'Whether special costs orders should be granted in relation to estoppel/waiver/admissions' 'Whether costs should be proportionate for the fourth defendant' 'Entitlement to Bullock or Sanderson order' 'Appropriate costs orders in cross-claims']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's offer of compromise was valid and not undermined by procedural or evidentiary deficiencies; indemnity costs are justified against the first and fourth defendants from 17 July 2007. Bullock or Sanderson orders are not appropriate due to lack of conduct by first or fourth defendants leading to joinder. Proportional costs order for the fourth defendant is denied due to joint and several liability. Distinguishing costs of estoppel/waiver/admissions is not warranted as the issue was legitimately raised and adjournment served other purposes.

Court Disposition

Costs orders granted as per judgment.

Orders

  • ["The first and fourth defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis until 16 July 2007, and on an indemnity basis from 17 July 2007." 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the second defendant, the third defendant and the fifth defendant.' "The ninth cross defendant is to pay the first...