Glenice Bailey v Warwick La Hood [2017] NSWSC 1469

Glenice Bailey v Warwick La Hood [2017] NSWSC 1469

The defendants were successful and there was no reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The August 2017 Calderbank offer was a genuine compromise and the plaintiff's refusal was unreasonable because it allowed her to avoid further costs exposure, gave up existing costs orders, and identified the untenable nature of her case shortly before hearing. The November 2016 offer did not justify indemnity costs because the benefit to the plaintiff was too small. The plaintiff's September 2014 offer could not be relied on because it did not resolve the proceedings, was not a genuine compromise, and the plaintiff did not obtain an order or judgment no less favourable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application After Judgment in Professional Negligence Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Judgment Entered for the Defendants
Outcome
The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs as a lump sum, including interest, with the operation of the order stayed for three months.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'interest on Costs' 'offers of Compromise']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'interest on Costs' 'offers of Compromise']

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 Application After Judgment in Professional Negligence Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Judgment Entered for the Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's failure to accept Calderbank offers should result in indemnity costs." 'Whether the plaintiff could rely on her 24 September 2014 offer of compromise for a special costs order.' 'Whether a specified gross sum costs order should be made instead of assessed costs.' 'Whether interest should be awarded on costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were successful and there was no reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The August 2017 Calderbank offer was a genuine compromise and the plaintiff's refusal was unreasonable because it allowed her to avoid further costs exposure, gave up existing costs orders, and identified the untenable nature of her case shortly before hearing. The November 2016 offer did not justify indemnity costs because the benefit to the plaintiff was too small. The plaintiff's September 2014 offer could not be relied on because it did not resolve the proceedings, was not a genuine compromise, and the plaintiff did not obtain an order or judgment no less favourable...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs as a lump sum, including interest, with the operation of the order stayed for three months.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs on the ordinary basis up to 22 August 2017 and on the indemnity basis thereafter." 'The plaintiff may not rely on the 24 September 2014 offer for a special costs order.' "The plaintiff must pay $249,824.92 as the costs to the defendants, payable to the defendants'...