Mainteck Services Pty Limited v Stein Heurtey SA and Stein Heurtey Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1165

Mainteck Services Pty Limited v Stein Heurtey SA and Stein Heurtey Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1165

The 28 September 2008 offer was not a valid offer of compromise and could not attract UCPR indemnity costs consequences. The 2 July 2010 Calderbank offer involved a real compromise, was clear, was made when the plaintiff had substantially all evidence needed to assess it, and foreshadowed reliance on costs, so rejection was unreasonable and the defendants should receive indemnity costs for the Representation and Disruption Claims after 2 July 2010. Before that date, the plaintiff's case was not so defective and its conduct not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs under the general discretion. The defendants succeeded on the Representation and Disruption Claims and should receive...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs / Post Judgment Costs Issues Following Principal Judgment and Orders
Outcome
The Court invited the parties to prepare and send short minutes of order giving effect to the reasons.
Legal Topics
['offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Costs' 'costs Discretion' 'set Off of Costs Against Judgment Amount']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'ordinary Costs' 'costs Discretion' 'set Off of Costs Against Judgment Amount']

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 Costs Issues Following Principal Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' 28 September 2008 offer complied with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 so as to attract indemnity costs consequences." "Whether the plaintiff's rejection of the defendants' 2 July 2010 Calderbank offer was unreasonable so as to attract indemnity costs consequences." 'Whether the Court should exercise its general discretion to award indemnity costs in relation to the Representation Claims.' 'Whether the defendants should receive ordinary costs or whether each party should bear its own costs.' 'Whether the costs of the Representation Claims include costs of the Contract Issues.' 'Whether costs to which the defendants are entitled should be set off against the 31 May 2013 judgment amount in favour of the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 28 September 2008 offer was not a valid offer of compromise and could not attract UCPR indemnity costs consequences. The 2 July 2010 Calderbank offer involved a real compromise, was clear, was made when the plaintiff had substantially all evidence needed to assess it, and foreshadowed reliance on costs, so rejection was unreasonable and the defendants should receive indemnity costs for the Representation and Disruption Claims after 2 July 2010. Before that date, the plaintiff's case was not so defective and its conduct not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs under the general discretion. The defendants succeeded on the Representation and Disruption Claims and should receive...

Court Disposition

The Court invited the parties to prepare and send short minutes of order giving effect to the reasons.

Orders

  • ['The defendants should be entitled to indemnity costs in relation to the Representation and Disruption Claims after 2 July 2010.' 'The defendants should be entitled to ordinary costs in relation to the Representation Claims and Disruption Claims up to 2 July 2010.' 'The costs awarded on the Representation Claims...