Awad v ISPT Pty Limited & Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Limited & Glad Cleaning Services Pty Limited (No 2) [2015] NSWDC 330

Awad v ISPT Pty Limited & Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Limited & Glad Cleaning Services Pty Limited (No 2) [2015] NSWDC 330

The offer of compromise was not valid under UCPR 20.26 because it required the parties to bear their own costs, contrary to the rule. Although the offer could be treated as a Calderbank offer, the plaintiff's refusal to accept it before 16 July 2014 was not unreasonable since exculpatory evidence for the first defendant did not come to light until after that date. Accordingly, indemnity costs should not be awarded against the plaintiff.

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
30 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Indemnity Costs After Judgment
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs refused
Legal Topics
Offer of Compromise, Calderbank Offer, Indemnity Costs, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Costs Offer of Compromise Calderbank Offer Indemnity Costs Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
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 / Application for Indemnity Costs After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant is entitled to indemnity costs from the plaintiff based on an offer of compromise or Calderbank offer
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's refusal of the first defendant's offer was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The offer of compromise was not valid under UCPR 20.26 because it required the parties to bear their own costs, contrary to the rule. Although the offer could be treated as a Calderbank offer, the plaintiff's refusal to accept it before 16 July 2014 was not unreasonable since exculpatory evidence for the first defendant did not come to light until after that date. Accordingly, indemnity costs should not be awarded against the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs refused

Orders

  • Application by the first defendant for indemnity costs against the plaintiff refused