Michael Hull & Associates Pty Ltd v Wood [2001] FCA 20

Michael Hull & Associates Pty Ltd v Wood [2001] FCA 20

Leave to withdraw the offer of compromise was granted because the first and second respondents made the offer on the mistaken assumption that acceptance would end all potential liability arising from the underlying facts, whereas Hull proposed to accept the offer and continue against the builder, creating a real possibility of a cross-claim against the first and second respondents; the urgency justified acting without affidavit evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Application in Respect of Alleged Infringement of Copyright in the Design of a Project Home; Ex Parte Notice of Motion for Leave to Withdraw an Offer of Compromise / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Leave granted to the first and second respondents to withdraw the offer of compromise.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'withdrawal of Offer of Compromise' 'federal Court Rules Order 23' 'copyright Infringement in Project Home Design' 'ex Parte Interlocutory Relief']
['practice and Procedure' 'copyright'] ['offer of Compromise' 'withdrawal of Offer of Compromise' 'federal Court Rules Order 23' 'copyright Infringement in Project Home Design' 'ex Parte Interlocutory Relief']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application in Respect of Alleged Infringement of Copyright in the Design of a Project Home; Ex Parte Notice of Motion for Leave to Withdraw an Offer of Compromise / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and second respondents should be granted leave under Order 23 subrule 5(5) of the Federal Court Rules to withdraw an offer of compromise within 14 days after it was made.' "Whether the Court should act on counsel's unverified statement in circumstances of urgency where no affidavit evidence was available."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to withdraw the offer of compromise was granted because the first and second respondents made the offer on the mistaken assumption that acceptance would end all potential liability arising from the underlying facts, whereas Hull proposed to accept the offer and continue against the builder, creating a real possibility of a cross-claim against the first and second respondents; the urgency justified acting without affidavit evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the first and second respondents to withdraw the offer of compromise.

Orders

  • ['The operation of Order 23 rule 8 of the Federal Court Rules be waived and that the rule not apply in respect of the application.' 'Leave be granted pursuant to Order 23 subrule 5(5) of the Federal Court Rules to the first and second respondents to withdraw the offer of compromise made by them to the applicant...