Lee v Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1586

Lee v Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1586

The covering letter clearly stated that, if the offer was not validly made under the rules, it was intended to operate as a Calderbank offer. The plaintiff obtained a result exceeding the offer. Carlton Crest had sufficient material by March 2013 to make a realistic assessment of damages and liability, making its refusal unreasonable, so indemnity costs after 23 March 2013 were warranted against it. The plaintiff did not discharge the onus of showing the Council's refusal was unreasonable because the liability case against the Council was intricate and not straightforward, so only party/party costs were ordered against it after that date. As between the defendants, party/party costs were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs Following Principal Judgment and Entry of Judgment for the Plaintiff
Outcome
Costs orders made; indemnity costs awarded against the first defendant after 23 March 2013, but not against the fourth defendant.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Letter' 'invalid Offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'party/party Costs' "contribution Between Defendants for Plaintiff's Costs"]
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['calderbank Letter' 'invalid Offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'party/party Costs' "contribution Between Defendants for Plaintiff's Costs"]

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 / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs Following Principal Judgment and Entry of Judgment for the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an invalid offer of compromise was effective as a Calderbank letter.' "Whether it was unreasonable for Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd to refuse the plaintiff's offer made in March 2013." "Whether it was unreasonable for City of Sydney Council to refuse the plaintiff's offer made in March 2013." "How the plaintiff's party/party costs should be apportioned as between the first and fourth defendants."]

Ratio Decidendi

The covering letter clearly stated that, if the offer was not validly made under the rules, it was intended to operate as a Calderbank offer. The plaintiff obtained a result exceeding the offer. Carlton Crest had sufficient material by March 2013 to make a realistic assessment of damages and liability, making its refusal unreasonable, so indemnity costs after 23 March 2013 were warranted against it. The plaintiff did not discharge the onus of showing the Council's refusal was unreasonable because the liability case against the Council was intricate and not straightforward, so only party/party costs were ordered against it after that date. As between the defendants, party/party costs were...

Court Disposition

Costs orders made; indemnity costs awarded against the first defendant after 23 March 2013, but not against the fourth defendant.

Orders

  • ["The first and fourth defendants pay the plaintiff's costs on a party/party basis up to and including 23 March 2013." "The first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis after 23 March 2013." "The fourth defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on a party/party basis after 23 March 2013." 'The Court...