George v Webb & ors [2012] NSWSC 86

George v Webb & ors [2012] NSWSC 86

A mathematical error in the calculation of interest could be corrected under the slip rule, but the adjustment sought by the defendants to recalculate interest from a later date would amount to a reopening of the hearing, for which no proper basis was shown. The plaintiff's offers of compromise and Calderbank offers involved genuine compromise (giving up of substantial interest or costs) and, being unreasonably refused, warranted indemnity costs from the relevant dates. The third defendant was to indemnify the first and second defendants in relation to the plaintiff’s costs, as their liability was the result of acting on his instructions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Judgment on Amendment of Interest Calculation and Costs Orders
Outcome
Application to amend interest date under slip rule refused; mathematical correction to interest allowed; indemnity costs orders made; cross-claimant indemnity ordered.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'equitable Compensation' 'trusts' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['slip Rule' 'costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'equitable Compensation' 'trusts' 'misleading and 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Judgment on Amendment of Interest Calculation and Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether amendment to the date from which interest is calculated falls within the slip rule under rule 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)' 'Whether there was a proper basis to reopen the hearing to adjust the date from which interest is calculated' 'Whether indemnity costs should be awarded following rejected offers of compromise and Calderbank offers']

Ratio Decidendi

A mathematical error in the calculation of interest could be corrected under the slip rule, but the adjustment sought by the defendants to recalculate interest from a later date would amount to a reopening of the hearing, for which no proper basis was shown. The plaintiff's offers of compromise and Calderbank offers involved genuine compromise (giving up of substantial interest or costs) and, being unreasonably refused, warranted indemnity costs from the relevant dates. The third defendant was to indemnify the first and second defendants in relation to the plaintiff’s costs, as their liability was the result of acting on his instructions.

Court Disposition

Application to amend interest date under slip rule refused; mathematical correction to interest allowed; indemnity costs orders made; cross-claimant indemnity ordered.

Orders

  • ['Amendment of the interest order to correct mathematical error, reducing interest to $39,422.36.' 'Defendants to pay plaintiff’s costs on party/party basis up to and including 20 September 2011 and on an indemnity basis from and including 21 September 2011.' 'Third defendant to indemnify first and second defendants...