Kingsman v NSW Trustee & Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 226

Kingsman v NSW Trustee & Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 226

The settlement was approved because the plaintiff was under legal incapacity and the Court was satisfied that there was not a sufficient prospect of obtaining a more favourable judgment against the second and third defendants if the claim continued. The plaintiff's legal advisers considered the second and third defendants' involvement not causative of the loss, the first defendant did not oppose the settlement despite its cross-claim, and settlement avoided the risk of substantial costs that could reduce recovery from other defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Approval of Settlement / Settlement Approval
Outcome
Settlement approved; judgment entered for the Second Defendant and the Third Defendant with respect to the Plaintiff's claim, with no order as to costs between those parties.
Legal Topics
['settlement Approval' 'person Under Legal Incapacity' 'tutor' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['settlement Approval' 'person Under Legal Incapacity' 'tutor' '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

Notice of Motion for Approval of Settlement / Settlement Approval

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should approve the plaintiff's settlement of proceedings against the second and third defendants under s 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)." 'Whether the settlement protected the interests of the plaintiff, a person under legal incapacity, having regard to the prospects of obtaining a more favourable judgment and the risk of costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement was approved because the plaintiff was under legal incapacity and the Court was satisfied that there was not a sufficient prospect of obtaining a more favourable judgment against the second and third defendants if the claim continued. The plaintiff's legal advisers considered the second and third defendants' involvement not causative of the loss, the first defendant did not oppose the settlement despite its cross-claim, and settlement avoided the risk of substantial costs that could reduce recovery from other defendants.

Court Disposition

Settlement approved; judgment entered for the Second Defendant and the Third Defendant with respect to the Plaintiff's claim, with no order as to costs between those parties.

Orders

  • ["Judgment for the Second Defendant and the Third Defendant with respect to the Plaintiff's claim." "No order as to costs between the Plaintiff, Second Defendant and Third Defendant with respect to the Plaintiff's claim."]