Amor-Smith v Ching (No. 2) [2016] NSWDC 187

Amor-Smith v Ching (No. 2) [2016] NSWDC 187

The court found that the circumstances, including a reasonable Calderbank offer and the plaintiff's dishonest conduct, justified an order for indemnity costs against the plaintiff.

Parties
Plaintiff: Genevieve Audrey Amor-Smith; Defendant: Peter Ching
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Summons
Outcome
Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Calderbank Offer
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Genevieve Audrey Amor-Smith

Plaintiff

Peter Ching

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the Calderbank offer was sufficient to trigger indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the circumstances, including a reasonable Calderbank offer and the plaintiff's dishonest conduct, justified an order for indemnity costs against the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • By way of variation of orders (2) and (3) contained in Gibson DCJ's judgment handed down today (Amor-Smith v Ching [2016] NSWDC 89), the plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.