Dymocks v Capral [2013] NSWSC 514

Dymocks v Capral [2013] NSWSC 514

Dymocks’ offer of compromise complied with Rule 20.26, Dalton’s objections under subrule (4) and (5) and its arguments about co-defendant offers and claim changes were not sufficient to displace the entitlement to indemnity costs after the offer date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Dispute / Post Judgment
Outcome
Costs assessed on ordinary basis up to 25 June 2010 and on indemnity basis thereafter.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer']

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 Dispute / Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sufficient particulars were provided under rule 20.26 subrule (4) for Dalton to consider the offer of compromise' 'Whether the offer to one defendant should be considered together with offers to other defendants' 'Whether there was a material change to Dymocks’ claim after the offer was made' 'Whether the existence of cross-claims between defendants affects the cost consequences']

Ratio Decidendi

Dymocks’ offer of compromise complied with Rule 20.26, Dalton’s objections under subrule (4) and (5) and its arguments about co-defendant offers and claim changes were not sufficient to displace the entitlement to indemnity costs after the offer date.

Court Disposition

Costs assessed on ordinary basis up to 25 June 2010 and on indemnity basis thereafter.

Orders

  • ['The costs payable by the second defendant (Dalton) to the plaintiff (Dymocks) be assessed on the ordinary basis up to 25 June 2010 and on the indemnity basis thereafter.']