Laurette v Walsh & Anor [2010] NSWSC 955

Laurette v Walsh & Anor [2010] NSWSC 955

No special costs order was warranted. It was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to reject the Calderbank offer at the time because she lacked information needed to assess whether there would be a shortfall or surplus and what personal assets had been sold by the first defendant. The plaintiff's formal offer of compromise was not comparable with the result because it proposed that the defendants buy her interest for $80,000 plus costs, whereas the proceedings concerned adjustment of interests in the property and resulted only in a $16,000 adjustment. Accordingly, the ordinary costs outcome applied and each party was to bear his or her own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Property Relationships Act Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs
Outcome
The plaintiff and first defendant bear his or her own costs.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'whether Refusal of Offer Was Unreasonable' 'whether Offer Was Comparable With Result' 'adjustment of Property Interests']
['costs' 'property Relationships'] ['calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'whether Refusal of Offer Was Unreasonable' 'whether Offer Was Comparable With Result' 'adjustment of Property Interests']

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 Application in Property Relationships Act Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a special costs order should be made in favour of the first defendant based on a Calderbank offer dated 16 July 2008.' 'Whether a special costs order should be made in favour of the plaintiff based on a formal offer of compromise made on 11 June 2009.' "Whether the ordinary costs position under UCPR r 42.30(2) should apply where the plaintiff's adjustment was $16,000."]

Ratio Decidendi

No special costs order was warranted. It was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to reject the Calderbank offer at the time because she lacked information needed to assess whether there would be a shortfall or surplus and what personal assets had been sold by the first defendant. The plaintiff's formal offer of compromise was not comparable with the result because it proposed that the defendants buy her interest for $80,000 plus costs, whereas the proceedings concerned adjustment of interests in the property and resulted only in a $16,000 adjustment. Accordingly, the ordinary costs outcome applied and each party was to bear his or her own costs.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff and first defendant bear his or her own costs.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff and first defendant bear his or her own costs.']