Lewis v Doyle (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 447

Lewis v Doyle (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 447

It was not unreasonable for the defendant to reject the first offer of compromise made three days after proceedings commenced, before the plaintiff had served his evidentiary statement or economic loss report and where the criminal conviction did not prove the evidentiary aspects of the civil allegations because of s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). By the second offer, pleadings had closed, mediation had occurred, details of the allegations and economic loss material were available, and rejection of that offer was unreasonable. A gross sum costs order was warranted because the defendant had become bankrupt, there was doubt about his capacity to pay, his conduct in putting the plaintiff...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment Determination on the Papers
Outcome
Costs ordered for the plaintiff in a gross sum.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'bankruptcy and Capacity to Pay Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'bankruptcy and Capacity to Pay 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis from the date of any of the plaintiff's offers of compromise." "Whether it was unreasonable for the defendant to reject the plaintiff's offers of compromise." 'Whether a gross sum costs order should be made under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' "What gross sum should be fixed for the plaintiff's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was not unreasonable for the defendant to reject the first offer of compromise made three days after proceedings commenced, before the plaintiff had served his evidentiary statement or economic loss report and where the criminal conviction did not prove the evidentiary aspects of the civil allegations because of s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). By the second offer, pleadings had closed, mediation had occurred, details of the allegations and economic loss material were available, and rejection of that offer was unreasonable. A gross sum costs order was warranted because the defendant had become bankrupt, there was doubt about his capacity to pay, his conduct in putting the plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Costs ordered for the plaintiff in a gross sum.

Orders

  • ["The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs in the sum of $255,000.00."]