Karen Da Pos v Mayne Group Limited [2004] NSWSC 1255

Karen Da Pos v Mayne Group Limited [2004] NSWSC 1255

The plaintiff's offer of compromise was valid. The words "without prejudice save as to the issue of costs and interest" did not qualify the operative terms of the offer, but concerned the use of the document in evidence, and no term was identified that negatived or limited Part 52A rule 22(1). Because the plaintiff...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Costs Application for Indemnity Costs Following an Action for Damages Under the Compensation to Relatives Act / Post Judgment Determination of Whether the Plaintiff's Offer of Compromise Was Valid
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs granted; the plaintiff's offer of compromise was held valid.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'validity of Offer of Compromise' 'construction of Offer' 'party/party Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'validity of Offer of Compromise' 'construction of Offer' 'party/party Costs']

Source-derived case record

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 Application for Indemnity Costs Following an Action for Damages Under the Compensation to Relatives Act / Post Judgment Determination of Whether the Plaintiff's Offer of Compromise Was Valid

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's offer of compromise dated 10 November 2003 was a valid offer of compromise within the Supreme Court Rules." 'Whether the words "without prejudice save as to the issues of costs and interest" made the offer ambiguous or incapable of acceptance.' 'Whether the offer contained a term purporting to negative or limit the operation of Part 52A rule 22(1).']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's offer of compromise was valid. The words "without prejudice save as to the issue of costs and interest" did not qualify the operative terms of the offer, but concerned the use of the document in evidence, and no term was identified that negatived or limited Part 52A rule 22(1). Because the plaintiff obtained a judgment no less favourable than the offer, the plaintiff was entitled to party/party costs up to and including 10 November 2003 and indemnity costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs granted; the plaintiff's offer of compromise was held valid.

Orders

  • ["The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs to be agreed or assessed on a party/party basis up to and including 10 November 2003." "Thereafter the defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs to be agreed or assessed on an indemnity basis."]