Singh v Singh (No 2) [2004] NSWSC 225

Singh v Singh (No 2) [2004] NSWSC 225

The plaintiff's non-acceptance of the 21 February 2003 offer did not warrant indemnity costs because the offer was received only one day before expiry and further information was reasonably sought. The 29 September 2003 proposal was not a real compromise because it required the plaintiff to withdraw the claim and pay the defendants' costs. No undertaking as to damages was ever given to the court, because the plaintiff's affidavit stated only a willingness to give the usual undertaking and the subsequent arrangements were consensual and made outside the court context.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Claimed Interest in Property and Post Judgment Costs Issues / Post Judgment Applications After Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claim
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
['calderbank Letters' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'property Claim']
['costs' 'practice and Procedure' 'equity'] ['calderbank Letters' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'property Claim']

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

Equity Proceedings Concerning Claimed Interest in Property and Post Judgment Costs Issues / Post Judgment Applications After Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis because the plaintiff did not accept the offer in the defendants' solicitors' letter of 21 February 2003." "Whether the defendants' later proposal that the plaintiff withdraw the claim and pay the defendants' costs was a real or genuine compromise capable of supporting indemnity costs." 'Whether an undertaking as to damages had been given to the court so that an inquiry by a Master should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's non-acceptance of the 21 February 2003 offer did not warrant indemnity costs because the offer was received only one day before expiry and further information was reasonably sought. The 29 September 2003 proposal was not a real compromise because it required the plaintiff to withdraw the claim and pay the defendants' costs. No undertaking as to damages was ever given to the court, because the plaintiff's affidavit stated only a willingness to give the usual undertaking and the subsequent arrangements were consensual and made outside the court context.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • ['The applications were dismissed.' 'Costs were not to be assessed on the indemnity basis.' 'No inquiry as to damages was referred to a Master.']