Jarjo v Patterson (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1311

Jarjo v Patterson (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1311

The plaintiffs were unsuccessful and Ms Patterson was innocent of the conduct that led to the litigation, so there was no good reason to depart from the usual rule that the plaintiffs pay her ordinary costs. Indemnity costs were refused because it was not unreasonable for the plaintiffs not to accept the relevant offers in the circumstances, including the early stage of the 15 April 2021 offers, the minor compromise offered, and the 21 September 2021 offer requiring a new contract at a price almost $1.2 million higher. Mr Patterson was deprived of his costs because his plainly unreasonable conduct in placing Ms Patterson's signature on the contract without authority and allowing exchange...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs / Determination on the Papers of Outstanding Costs Following Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Proceedings
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay the second defendant's costs on the ordinary basis; no other order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['departure From Usual Rule That Costs Follow the Event' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'successful Party Deprived of Costs']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['departure From Usual Rule That Costs Follow the Event' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'successful Party Deprived of 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 / Determination on the Papers of Outstanding Costs Following Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the unsuccessful plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs after their claims were dismissed." "Whether Mr Patterson's conduct in placing Ms Patterson's signature on the contract without authority justified depriving him of his costs despite his success." "Whether Ms Patterson's costs should be paid by the plaintiffs or by Mr Patterson." "Whether offers made by Ms Patterson on 15 April 2021 and the defendants' joint offer on 21 September 2021 justified indemnity costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were unsuccessful and Ms Patterson was innocent of the conduct that led to the litigation, so there was no good reason to depart from the usual rule that the plaintiffs pay her ordinary costs. Indemnity costs were refused because it was not unreasonable for the plaintiffs not to accept the relevant offers in the circumstances, including the early stage of the 15 April 2021 offers, the minor compromise offered, and the 21 September 2021 offer requiring a new contract at a price almost $1.2 million higher. Mr Patterson was deprived of his costs because his plainly unreasonable conduct in placing Ms Patterson's signature on the contract without authority and allowing exchange...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay the second defendant's costs on the ordinary basis; no other order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis." 'There otherwise be no order as to costs.']