McWilliam & Ors v Integral Energy [2010] NSWSC 254

McWilliam & Ors v Integral Energy [2010] NSWSC 254

The earlier dismissal of the defendant's motion concerning schedule costs did not determine that issue on the merits, and the defendant preserved the issue before entry of judgment on the compromise orders. The Keddies-related later schedules served on 6 October 2005, 3 November 2005 and 11 August 2006 were of little value and caused the defendant wasted work, whereas the December 2006 and April 2007 schedules were necessary and useful. The expanded Schedule D landscaping claim, as advanced through the Sidebottom reports, required the defendant reasonably to prepare to meet it and was then withdrawn without notice. Accordingly, the general order that the defendant pay the plaintiffs'...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Common Law Division Damages Proceedings Arising From Destruction of Property by Fire / Consequential Orders After Settlements and Judgments
Outcome
Defendant's costs application substantially allowed; plaintiffs' general costs entitlement qualified by specified costs orders in favour of the defendant.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away' 'offers of Compromise' 'amendment of Schedules of Loss' 'discontinuance or Abandonment of Claim' 'property Destroyed by Fire' 'landscaping Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'tort Damages'] ['costs Thrown Away' 'offers of Compromise' 'amendment of Schedules of Loss' 'discontinuance or Abandonment of Claim' 'property Destroyed by Fire' 'landscaping Damages']

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 in Common Law Division Damages Proceedings Arising From Destruction of Property by Fire / Consequential Orders After Settlements and Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant could pursue costs thrown away by amendments to schedules of items claimed after earlier orders and acceptance of offers of compromise.' "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs of dealing with statements of loss and schedules served on 6 October 2005, 3 November 2005 and 11 August 2006." "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs of meeting the abandoned claim for landscaping and vegetable garden damages under Schedule D." 'What costs order should be made for the present application, including costs associated with folders prepared for the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The earlier dismissal of the defendant's motion concerning schedule costs did not determine that issue on the merits, and the defendant preserved the issue before entry of judgment on the compromise orders. The Keddies-related later schedules served on 6 October 2005, 3 November 2005 and 11 August 2006 were of little value and caused the defendant wasted work, whereas the December 2006 and April 2007 schedules were necessary and useful. The expanded Schedule D landscaping claim, as advanced through the Sidebottom reports, required the defendant reasonably to prepare to meet it and was then withdrawn without notice. Accordingly, the general order that the defendant pay the plaintiffs'...

Court Disposition

Defendant's costs application substantially allowed; plaintiffs' general costs entitlement qualified by specified costs orders in favour of the defendant.

Orders

  • ["The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings in accordance with the various judgments which have been entered in their favour." "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed incurred by it in relation to dealing with the statements of loss and accompanying schedules...