Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 4) [2008] NSWIRComm 23

Neeson v Amora Company Limited and ors (No 4) [2008] NSWIRComm 23

Because the applicant commenced the proceedings and failed when the Court dismissed the summons for want of jurisdiction, there was no discretionary reason to deny the second to fourth respondents ordinary costs. However, the 11 August 2005 offer was not made under Part 23 of the Rules of the Court and Rule 216 did not apply; applying Calderbank principles, the respondents did not demonstrate that the applicant acted so unreasonably in refusing the offer as to justify indemnity costs, particularly given the state of the proceedings, uncertainty about Court of Appeal costs, absence of evidence about costs incurred, and the potential value of the applicant's unfairness allegations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Costs Application in Unfair Contract Proceedings / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of the Summons for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
The second to fourth respondents obtained ordinary costs of the proceedings, but their application for indemnity costs was refused; they were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the unnecessary hearing on 7 February 2008.
Legal Topics
['s 106 Unfair Contract Proceedings' 'costs Discretion' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'territorial Nexus' 'want of Jurisdiction']
['industrial Relations' 'costs'] ['s 106 Unfair Contract Proceedings' 'costs Discretion' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'territorial Nexus' 'want of Jurisdiction']

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

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Costs Application in Unfair Contract Proceedings / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of the Summons for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the second to fourth respondents' costs after the proceedings were dismissed for want of jurisdiction." 'Whether the applicant should pay costs on an indemnity basis from 11 August 2005 because she rejected a Calderbank type offer.' 'Whether the oral costs hearing on 7 February 2008 was necessary and who should bear its costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant commenced the proceedings and failed when the Court dismissed the summons for want of jurisdiction, there was no discretionary reason to deny the second to fourth respondents ordinary costs. However, the 11 August 2005 offer was not made under Part 23 of the Rules of the Court and Rule 216 did not apply; applying Calderbank principles, the respondents did not demonstrate that the applicant acted so unreasonably in refusing the offer as to justify indemnity costs, particularly given the state of the proceedings, uncertainty about Court of Appeal costs, absence of evidence about costs incurred, and the potential value of the applicant's unfairness allegations.

Court Disposition

The second to fourth respondents obtained ordinary costs of the proceedings, but their application for indemnity costs was refused; they were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the unnecessary hearing on 7 February 2008.

Orders

  • ["Subject to order 2, the applicant is to pay the 2nd to 4th respondents' costs of the proceedings." "The 2nd to 4th respondents are to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings on 7 February 2008." 'All costs are to be assessed in default of agreement.']