Young v Hones (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 499

Young v Hones (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 499

Indemnity costs were refused because the plaintiff was not shown to have acted unreasonably in failing to accept the relevant offers; in particular, several offers allowed too short a time for consideration, and the third defendant's early formal offer warranted the Court otherwise ordering because it was made at an early stage, offered only a modest compromise, and did not rely on advocate's immunity. Gross sum costs orders were appropriate because the litigation was protracted and complex, costs assessment would likely be lengthy, contentious and expensive, and the defendants provided adequate material to permit fair assessment. Interest on the gross sums was ordered from 1 July 2013 as...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications for Costs and Stay / Costs Judgment After Dismissal of Proceedings and Pending Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Defendants' motions granted in part; indemnity costs refused; gross sum costs and interest ordered; gross sum costs orders stayed pending appeal; motions otherwise dismissed; each party to bear own costs of the motions.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'interest on Costs Orders' 'stay of Costs Orders Pending Appeal']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'gross Sum Costs Orders' 'interest on Costs Orders' 'stay of Costs Orders Pending Appeal']

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

Interlocutory Applications for Costs and Stay / Costs Judgment After Dismissal of Proceedings and Pending Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should receive indemnity costs because the plaintiff failed to accept offers of compromise or Calderbank offers.' "Whether it was unreasonable for the plaintiff not to accept the defendants' offers, including having regard to whether the offers involved a real element of compromise and whether the time allowed for acceptance was reasonable." 'Whether gross sum costs orders should be made under s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 instead of requiring costs assessment.' 'Whether interest should be ordered on gross sum costs orders under s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and from what date.' "Whether the gross sum costs orders should be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiff's appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were refused because the plaintiff was not shown to have acted unreasonably in failing to accept the relevant offers; in particular, several offers allowed too short a time for consideration, and the third defendant's early formal offer warranted the Court otherwise ordering because it was made at an early stage, offered only a modest compromise, and did not rely on advocate's immunity. Gross sum costs orders were appropriate because the litigation was protracted and complex, costs assessment would likely be lengthy, contentious and expensive, and the defendants provided adequate material to permit fair assessment. Interest on the gross sums was ordered from 1 July 2013 as...

Court Disposition

Defendants' motions granted in part; indemnity costs refused; gross sum costs and interest ordered; gross sum costs orders stayed pending appeal; motions otherwise dismissed; each party to bear own costs of the motions.

Orders

  • ['Vacate Order 3 made on 27 September 2013 and all previous costs orders made in favour of each defendant.' 'Order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the first and second defendants including reserved costs, in the sum of $190,000.' 'Order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the third defendant, including reserved...