Michelangelo Alfredo Mascarello & Anor v Registrar-General of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 805

Michelangelo Alfredo Mascarello & Anor v Registrar-General of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 805

Although the First Offer and Second Offer were genuine, made relatively early, accurate in hindsight, and left open for reasonable periods, it was not unreasonable for the Registrar-General to reject them because the litigation concerned an audacious fraud, the evidence of Ms Kazas-Rogaris and Ms Pace could reasonably be tested, and there was uncertainty about whether the persons who attended K R Lawyers' office were the Mascarellos, imposters, or resembled the Mascarellos. Indemnity costs were therefore not appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Judgment Following Principal Judgment on Subrogated Cross Claim
Outcome
K R Lawyers' application for indemnity costs was refused.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offer of Compromise' 'torrens Assurance Fund' 'subrogated Cross Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'property Law'] ['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offer of Compromise' 'torrens Assurance Fund' 'subrogated Cross Claim']

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 / Costs Judgment Following Principal Judgment on Subrogated Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether K R Lawyers' Calderbank offers were genuine offers of compromise." 'Whether it was unreasonable for the Registrar-General not to accept the First Offer or the Second Offer.' 'Whether K R Lawyers should receive indemnity costs after 27 March 2017 or alternatively after 23 November 2017.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the First Offer and Second Offer were genuine, made relatively early, accurate in hindsight, and left open for reasonable periods, it was not unreasonable for the Registrar-General to reject them because the litigation concerned an audacious fraud, the evidence of Ms Kazas-Rogaris and Ms Pace could reasonably be tested, and there was uncertainty about whether the persons who attended K R Lawyers' office were the Mascarellos, imposters, or resembled the Mascarellos. Indemnity costs were therefore not appropriate.

Court Disposition

K R Lawyers' application for indemnity costs was refused.

Orders

  • ['The parties were invited to prepare short minutes of order to reflect the reasons as soon as practicable.']