Neville v Lam (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1088

Neville v Lam (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1088

The second offer of compromise made by the defendant on or about 28 October 2013 was valid under the UCPR and constituted a genuine compromise. As it was not accepted and represented a better outcome than achieved by the plaintiff, the defendant was entitled to costs on an ordinary basis up to 28 October 2013 and on an indemnity basis thereafter. The discretion to order otherwise did not warrant intervention as the offer was a true compromise and the rejection, while arguably reasonable, did not displace the operation of UCPR r 42.15A.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs orders varied following successful application by the defendant; plaintiff to pay costs as specified.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise']

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

Civil / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the offers made by the defendant constituted valid offers of compromise under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)' "Whether plaintiff should pay defendant's costs on an indemnity basis from a certain date" 'Whether rejection of settlement offer was reasonable and impacts cost order']

Ratio Decidendi

The second offer of compromise made by the defendant on or about 28 October 2013 was valid under the UCPR and constituted a genuine compromise. As it was not accepted and represented a better outcome than achieved by the plaintiff, the defendant was entitled to costs on an ordinary basis up to 28 October 2013 and on an indemnity basis thereafter. The discretion to order otherwise did not warrant intervention as the offer was a true compromise and the rejection, while arguably reasonable, did not displace the operation of UCPR r 42.15A.

Court Disposition

Costs orders varied following successful application by the defendant; plaintiff to pay costs as specified.

Orders

  • ['Order 2 made on 21 May 2014 be set aside.' "The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on an ordinary basis up to and including 28 October 2013." "The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings thereafter on an indemnity basis, such costs to include the costs of the defendant's motion...