Doble Express Transport Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) v John L Pierce Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 45
Pierce was not entitled to indemnity costs against Doble because Doble did not have the reasonable period contemplated by the rules to consider the offer of compromise in light of the Notice of Contention and submissions; the Court exercised discretion otherwise under UCPR r 42.15A.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Application Appeal / Court of Appeal Post Judgment Motion
- Outcome
- Notice of Motion dismissed, respondent to pay appellant's costs of the motion.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Appeal / Court of Appeal Post Judgment Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the respondent is entitled to indemnity costs pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.15A after appellant failed to accept an offer of compromise.' 'Whether the appellant had sufficient time and information to assess the reasonableness of the offer of compromise.']
Ratio Decidendi
Pierce was not entitled to indemnity costs against Doble because Doble did not have the reasonable period contemplated by the rules to consider the offer of compromise in light of the Notice of Contention and submissions; the Court exercised discretion otherwise under UCPR r 42.15A.
Court Disposition
Notice of Motion dismissed, respondent to pay appellant's costs of the motion.
Orders
- ['Dismiss the Notice of Motion filed by the respondent (Pierce) on 22 December 2016.' 'Pierce pay the costs of the appellant (Doble) of the Motion.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment