Parker v City of Bankstown RSL Community Club Ltd (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 921

Parker v City of Bankstown RSL Community Club Ltd (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 921

The first defendant's 22 June 2010 offer did not justify indemnity costs because the proceedings were at an early stage, the plaintiff could not reasonably appreciate the strength of the defence, and the compromise was relatively small. The plaintiff was, however, in a good position by 19 May 2014 to assess her prospects and it was unreasonable not to accept the first defendant's second offer, which involved substantial compromise given the costs then incurred. The second and third defendants' 11 April 2014 offer complied with r 20.26, involved a genuine and significant compromise, and there was no reason to displace r 42.15A; their Calderbank offer also justified indemnity costs from the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs / Post Judgment Applications for Indemnity Costs Following Judgment for the Defendants
Outcome
The defendants' applications for indemnity costs were allowed in part, with indemnity costs ordered from 20 May 2014 for the first defendant and from 12 April 2014 for the second and third defendants.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 20.26' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 42.15 A']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 20.26' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 42.15 A']

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 Applications for Indemnity Costs Following Judgment for the Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the first defendant's costs on an indemnity basis because she did not accept Calderbank offers made on 22 June 2010 and 19 May 2014." "Whether the plaintiff should pay the second and third defendants' costs on an indemnity basis because she did not accept their 11 April 2014 Calderbank offer and Notice of Offer of Compromise."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant's 22 June 2010 offer did not justify indemnity costs because the proceedings were at an early stage, the plaintiff could not reasonably appreciate the strength of the defence, and the compromise was relatively small. The plaintiff was, however, in a good position by 19 May 2014 to assess her prospects and it was unreasonable not to accept the first defendant's second offer, which involved substantial compromise given the costs then incurred. The second and third defendants' 11 April 2014 offer complied with r 20.26, involved a genuine and significant compromise, and there was no reason to displace r 42.15A; their Calderbank offer also justified indemnity costs from the...

Court Disposition

The defendants' applications for indemnity costs were allowed in part, with indemnity costs ordered from 20 May 2014 for the first defendant and from 12 April 2014 for the second and third defendants.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis up to and including 19 May 2014 and on an indemnity basis thereafter." "The plaintiff is to pay the second and third defendants' costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis up to and including 11 April 2014 and on an...