Rickard & Ors v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 101

Rickard & Ors v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 101

A Sanderson order will be made against Allianz (and Woolworths in Wheeler) to cover the RTA's costs where Allianz's/Woolworths' conduct—including unsolicited service of expert reports and suggestions of liability elsewhere—amounted to more than minimal encouragement and created sufficient uncertainty or inducement for plaintiffs to join the RTA as a defendant. No such order is made regarding the Lavis brothers, nor is mere denial of liability or service of reports in the course of litigation (as opposed to before its commencement) alone sufficient to ground a Bullock or Sanderson order. Each party is to pay costs as determined specifically for each proceeding and cross-claim as outlined...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Post Judgment: Determination of Costs Following Earlier Judgment
Outcome
Costs allocated between parties as per orders: Sanderson orders in favour of plaintiffs in Rickard and Wheeler regarding RTA costs (paid by Allianz/Woolworths); otherwise, costs generally follow the event, with no order as to costs in certain cross-claims as specified.
Legal Topics
['bullock and Sanderson Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'motor Vehicle Accident Liability' 'costs Awards Procedure']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['bullock and Sanderson Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'motor Vehicle Accident Liability' 'costs Awards Procedure']

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

Consequential Orders / Post Judgment: Determination of Costs Following Earlier Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Bullock or Sanderson orders should be made where plaintiffs succeed against one defendant but not others' 'Whether conduct of defendant(s) encouraged joinder of successful defendant(s) and justifies special costs orders' 'Application of precedent regarding costs where positive defences and cross-claims are raised']

Ratio Decidendi

A Sanderson order will be made against Allianz (and Woolworths in Wheeler) to cover the RTA's costs where Allianz's/Woolworths' conduct—including unsolicited service of expert reports and suggestions of liability elsewhere—amounted to more than minimal encouragement and created sufficient uncertainty or inducement for plaintiffs to join the RTA as a defendant. No such order is made regarding the Lavis brothers, nor is mere denial of liability or service of reports in the course of litigation (as opposed to before its commencement) alone sufficient to ground a Bullock or Sanderson order. Each party is to pay costs as determined specifically for each proceeding and cross-claim as outlined...

Court Disposition

Costs allocated between parties as per orders: Sanderson orders in favour of plaintiffs in Rickard and Wheeler regarding RTA costs (paid by Allianz/Woolworths); otherwise, costs generally follow the event, with no order as to costs in certain cross-claims as specified.

Orders

  • ["Allianz to pay Rickard's costs and the RTA's costs due from Rickard; Rickard to pay Lavis brothers' costs; Allianz to pay Lavis brothers and RTA costs in first cross-claim; Brian and John Lavis to pay RTA's costs of fifth cross-claim (Rickard proceedings)." "Allianz to pay Dennison's costs; Dennison to pay RTA...