Grewal v Layton (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1910

Grewal v Layton (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1910

The first two offers were genuine compromises but rejection was not unreasonable because they required execution of deeds containing full mutual releases whose terms were not provided, were open for only two weeks, and other dealings made the scope of releases unclear. The formal offer made on 6 July 2018 was a genuine offer of compromise, the plaintiff obtained a judgment no less favourable than its terms, and the difference between the pleaded joint and several liability case and the successful case against Mr Layton alone was not sufficiently significant to justify ordering otherwise. A gross sum costs order was inappropriate because the case was straightforward, there was no evidence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs / Application by the Plaintiff to Vary the Costs Order After Judgment to Seek Indemnity Costs and a Gross Sum Costs Order
Outcome
Indemnity costs granted from 7 July 2018; gross sum costs order refused.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'gross Sum Costs Orders']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['party/party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'gross Sum Costs Orders']

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 by the Plaintiff to Vary the Costs Order After Judgment to Seek Indemnity Costs and a Gross Sum Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's first two Calderbank offers were genuine offers of compromise and whether their rejection was unreasonable" 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs following non-acceptance of the formal offer of compromise made under Part 20 Division 4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)' 'Whether the Court should order otherwise under UCPR r 42.14 because the case that succeeded differed from the case pleaded when the offer was made' 'Whether it was appropriate to make a gross sum costs order']

Ratio Decidendi

The first two offers were genuine compromises but rejection was not unreasonable because they required execution of deeds containing full mutual releases whose terms were not provided, were open for only two weeks, and other dealings made the scope of releases unclear. The formal offer made on 6 July 2018 was a genuine offer of compromise, the plaintiff obtained a judgment no less favourable than its terms, and the difference between the pleaded joint and several liability case and the successful case against Mr Layton alone was not sufficiently significant to justify ordering otherwise. A gross sum costs order was inappropriate because the case was straightforward, there was no evidence...

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs granted from 7 July 2018; gross sum costs order refused.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis up to and including 6 July 2018 and on an indemnity basis on and from 7 July 2018"]