Vickers v Taccone [2005] NSWSC 646

Vickers v Taccone [2005] NSWSC 646

Indemnity costs were not justified as the defendants' conduct was not hopeless nor unreasonable in rejecting Calderbank offers, especially in light of legal advice indicating a strong case. Sanderson orders are appropriate where litigation and claims against successful defendant arose due to unsuccessful defendants’ conduct, making it fair for them to bear the successful defendant’s costs.

Parties
Plaintiff: Graeme Arthur Vickers; First Defendant, First Cross Claimant: Augusta Taccone; Second Defendant, First Cross Claimant: Anthony Taccone; Third Defendant, Second Cross Claimant: Geraway Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Post Judgment, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs determined; Sanderson order made; no indemnity costs awarded
Legal Topics
Costs Follow the Event, Indemnity Costs, Bullock Orders, Sanderson Orders, Calderbank Offers, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Procedure Costs Costs Follow the Event Indemnity Costs Bullock Orders Sanderson Orders Calderbank Offers Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graeme Arthur Vickers

Plaintiff

Augusta Taccone

First Defendant, First Cross Claimant

Anthony Taccone

Second Defendant, First Cross Claimant

Geraway Pty Limited

Third Defendant, Second Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Post Judgment, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the unsuccessful defendants
  2. 2 Appropriate order for costs of the successful third defendant
  3. 3 Applicability of Bullock and Sanderson orders

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were not justified as the defendants' conduct was not hopeless nor unreasonable in rejecting Calderbank offers, especially in light of legal advice indicating a strong case. Sanderson orders are appropriate where litigation and claims against successful defendant arose due to unsuccessful defendants’ conduct, making it fair for them to bear the successful defendant’s costs.

Court Disposition

Costs determined; Sanderson order made; no indemnity costs awarded

Orders

  • First and second defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
  • First and second defendants to pay the third defendant's costs of the proceedings.