Awad v ISPT Pty Limited & Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Limited & Glad Cleaning Services Pty Limited (No 3) [2015] NSWDC 331

Awad v ISPT Pty Limited & Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Limited & Glad Cleaning Services Pty Limited (No 3) [2015] NSWDC 331

The plaintiff's application under s 341 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 is refused because no conduct by the defendants was identified that was not reasonably necessary for the advancement of their respective cases nor likely or intended to delay or complicate determination of the claim. Failure to make an offer of settlement or pressing of reasonably arguable defences does not enliven s 341. As to costs between the second and third defendants, costs are to be apportioned pro rata to their liability for the plaintiff's damages, with the principle that 'equality is equity' not overriding the statutory scheme under s 5(1)(c). Close offer of contribution by the second defendant was...

Parties
Plaintiff: Maryam Awad; First Defendant: ISPT Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Glad Cleaning Services Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome
Plaintiff's application under s 341 refused; second defendant's application for indemnity/apportioned costs order varied; application regarding offer of compromise refused.
Legal Topics
Maximum Costs Limitation, Contribution Among Tortfeasors, Offers of Compromise, Apportionment of Costs, Personal Injury Damages
Costs Equity Contract Tort Maximum Costs Limitation Contribution Among Tortfeasors Offers of Compromise Apportionment of Costs +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 39 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maryam Awad

Plaintiff

ISPT Pty Limited

First Defendant

Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Glad Cleaning Services Pty Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of defendants enlivened s 341 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 to exclude the statutory maximum costs limitation
  2. 2 How costs between second and third defendants in respect of the first defendant should be apportioned
  3. 3 Whether an offer of compromise or its withdrawal by defendants affected costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's application under s 341 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 is refused because no conduct by the defendants was identified that was not reasonably necessary for the advancement of their respective cases nor likely or intended to delay or complicate determination of the claim. Failure to make an offer of settlement or pressing of reasonably arguable defences does not enliven s 341. As to costs between the second and third defendants, costs are to be apportioned pro rata to their liability for the plaintiff's damages, with the principle that 'equality is equity' not overriding the statutory scheme under s 5(1)(c). Close offer of contribution by the second defendant was...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application under s 341 refused; second defendant's application for indemnity/apportioned costs order varied; application regarding offer of compromise refused.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application under s 341 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 is refused.
  • Costs ordered to be paid by the second and third defendants are to be paid pro rata to their liability for the plaintiff's damages.