Josip Duic v Emil Duic [2012] NSWSC 113

Josip Duic v Emil Duic [2012] NSWSC 113

The plaintiff did not establish a basis to depart from the usual costs rule. The 13 May 2011 Calderbank offer would have made the plaintiff significantly better off than the judgment ultimately given and acceptance would have avoided further legal costs and five days of Court time, justifying ordinary costs up to 13 May 2011 and indemnity costs thereafter. The 7 February 2012 formal offer of compromise was too late and was discarded for costs purposes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs / Post Judgment Costs Determination After Judgment Handed Down on 16 February 2012
Outcome
The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis up to 13 May 2011 and thereafter on an indemnity basis, with no order for costs against the plaintiff in respect of the 7 February 2012 formal offer of compromise.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' "successful Party's Costs" 'calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Discretion' "successful Party's Costs" 'calderbank Offer' 'offer 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

Costs / Post Judgment Costs Determination After Judgment Handed Down on 16 February 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there should be a departure from the usual rule that the successful party is entitled to costs.' "Whether the defendant's 13 May 2011 Calderbank offer justified an indemnity costs order from that date." "Whether the defendant's 7 February 2012 formal offer of compromise should affect the costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish a basis to depart from the usual costs rule. The 13 May 2011 Calderbank offer would have made the plaintiff significantly better off than the judgment ultimately given and acceptance would have avoided further legal costs and five days of Court time, justifying ordinary costs up to 13 May 2011 and indemnity costs thereafter. The 7 February 2012 formal offer of compromise was too late and was discarded for costs purposes.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis up to 13 May 2011 and thereafter on an indemnity basis, with no order for costs against the plaintiff in respect of the 7 February 2012 formal offer of compromise.

Orders

  • ['There is to be no order for costs against the plaintiff in respect of the so-called formal offer of compromise concerning the 7 February offer of compromise.' "The plaintiff is otherwise to pay the defendant's costs (including those costs ordered by Justice Hall in these proceedings on 17 March 2011) on the...