Moffett v Robin (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 426

Moffett v Robin (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 426

The court, exercising its discretion under s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, held the unsuccessful plaintiff should pay the ordinary costs of both defendants, as there were no sufficient exceptional circumstances or disentitling conduct to justify a different order. Indemnity costs were refused because rejection of the Offers of Compromise and Calderbank letters was not unreasonable, given lack of significant compromise and complexity of issues. Costs of cross-claims and against WFI followed the ordinary basis according to substantial success and absence of misconduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed against both defendants; costs orders as specified for each party.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'negligence' 'workers Compensation' 'offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'negligence' 'workers Compensation' 'offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs']

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 Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Entitlement to costs following dismissal of negligence claim' 'Application of Offers of Compromise and Calderbank principles to costs' 'Circumstances justifying a Bullock or Sanderson order' 'Costs allocation in relation to cross-claims' 'Reasonableness of rejection of Calderbank or compromise offers']

Ratio Decidendi

The court, exercising its discretion under s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, held the unsuccessful plaintiff should pay the ordinary costs of both defendants, as there were no sufficient exceptional circumstances or disentitling conduct to justify a different order. Indemnity costs were refused because rejection of the Offers of Compromise and Calderbank letters was not unreasonable, given lack of significant compromise and complexity of issues. Costs of cross-claims and against WFI followed the ordinary basis according to substantial success and absence of misconduct.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed against both defendants; costs orders as specified for each party.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff to pay Mr Robin's costs on the ordinary basis, including costs of Notice of Motion filed 16 July 2019." "Plaintiff to pay Active Tree Services Pty Ltd's costs on the ordinary basis, including costs of Notice of Motion filed 16 July 2019." "Active Tree Services Pty Ltd to pay Mr Robin's costs of the First...