Kramer v Stone (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 298

Kramer v Stone (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 298

While the respondent’s offer to bear his own costs was capable of constituting a genuine element of compromise, in the circumstances it lacked substantial compromise and, given the arguable merits of the appeal, it was not unreasonable for the appellants to reject the offer. Thus, a special (indemnity) costs order is not justified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Special Costs Order Following Court of Appeal Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Application for special costs order dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'appeals']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'appeals']

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

Appeal / Application for Special Costs Order Following Court of Appeal Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent’s offer of compromise was a genuine offer of compromise under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.15A' 'Whether it was unreasonable for the appellants to reject the respondent’s offer so as to justify a special (indemnity) costs order']

Ratio Decidendi

While the respondent’s offer to bear his own costs was capable of constituting a genuine element of compromise, in the circumstances it lacked substantial compromise and, given the arguable merits of the appeal, it was not unreasonable for the appellants to reject the offer. Thus, a special (indemnity) costs order is not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for special costs order dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for a special costs order is dismissed, with no order as to the costs of that application.']