Averkin v Insurance Australia Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 150
Pre-judgment interest is included in the sum for judgment under r 42.35, so the threshold was exceeded and default costs rules apply. Mr Averkin is entitled to costs on an ordinary basis to the date of his valid offer of compromise, and thereafter on an indemnity basis. The same approach applies to costs of the appeal, given a further valid offer of compromise.
- Parties
- Appellant: Mr Michael Averkin; Respondent: Insurance Australia Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 June 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Post Appeal Judgment and Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; orders made for judgment and costs in favour of Mr Averkin.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Offers of Compromise, Jurisdictional Thresholds, Pre Judgment Interest
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr Michael Averkin
Appellant
Insurance Australia Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Appeal Judgment and Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether pre-judgment interest is included in calculation for jurisdictional threshold under r 42.35
- 2 Entitlement to special costs orders due to offers of compromise
- 3 Appropriate allocation of costs at first instance and on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Pre-judgment interest is included in the sum for judgment under r 42.35, so the threshold was exceeded and default costs rules apply. Mr Averkin is entitled to costs on an ordinary basis to the date of his valid offer of compromise, and thereafter on an indemnity basis. The same approach applies to costs of the appeal, given a further valid offer of compromise.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; orders made for judgment and costs in favour of Mr Averkin.
Orders
- Judgment for Mr Averkin in the amount of $42,239.70, taking effect as of 24 April 2015.
- Insurer to pay Mr Averkin's costs at first instance (assessed on ordinary basis until 21 May 2014, and on indemnity basis from 22 May 2014).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment