CSR Limited & Anor v Thompson; Thompson v CSR Limited & Anor (No 2) [2004] NSWCA 11

CSR Limited & Anor v Thompson; Thompson v CSR Limited & Anor (No 2) [2004] NSWCA 11

The appellants failed to obtain a more favourable outcome than the respondent's offer of compromise dated 3 June 2003; as such, pursuant to the rules, they are to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis from that date. The respondent was not unreasonable in applying for leave to cross-appeal, so only standard costs are ordered against him for that application.

Parties
Appellant: CSR Limited; Second Appellant: Midalco Pty Limited (Formerly known as Australian Blue Asbestos Pty Limited); Respondent/claimant/cross Appellant: John Leonard Thompson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal (on Costs) / Post Judgment, Determination of Costs
Outcome
Appeal costs orders made; application for leave to cross-appeal costs ordered against respondent; no indemnity costs for application for leave to cross-appeal
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Offer of Compromise, Rejection of Pre Trial Offer, Appeal Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Offer of Compromise Rejection of Pre Trial Offer Appeal Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CSR Limited

Appellant

Midalco Pty Limited (Formerly known as Australian Blue Asbestos Pty Limited)

Second Appellant

John Leonard Thompson

Respondent/claimant/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal (on Costs) / Post Judgment, Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded to the respondent from the date of the offer of compromise
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should pay the appellants' costs of the application for leave to cross-appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to obtain a more favourable outcome than the respondent's offer of compromise dated 3 June 2003; as such, pursuant to the rules, they are to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis from that date. The respondent was not unreasonable in applying for leave to cross-appeal, so only standard costs are ordered against him for that application.

Court Disposition

Appeal costs orders made; application for leave to cross-appeal costs ordered against respondent; no indemnity costs for application for leave to cross-appeal

Orders

  • The appellants pay the respondent the costs of the appeal on the basis that, as from 3 June 2003, those costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis
  • The respondent is to pay the appellants' costs of the application for leave to cross-appeal