New Start Property Group Pty Ltd v Norman Stanley Hayde [2017] NSWSC 1454

New Start Property Group Pty Ltd v Norman Stanley Hayde [2017] NSWSC 1454

The Offer of Compromise expressly proposed judgment for the plaintiff by requiring release to it of the whole deposit claimed, was accepted within the specified time, and complied with UCPR r 20.26. Because the offer made no provision for costs, UCPR r 42.13A(2) entitled the plaintiff to its costs of the claim on...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Equity Proceedings Concerning a Contract for the Sale of Land / On the Papers After Acceptance of an Offer of Compromise
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded costs of its claim up to 7 September 2017; first defendant's Cross-Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'costs Where Offer Accepted and No Provision for Costs' 'legal Incapacity' 'appointment of Tutor' 'contract for Sale of Land Deposit']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['offer of Compromise' 'costs Where Offer Accepted and No Provision for Costs' 'legal Incapacity' 'appointment of Tutor' 'contract for Sale of Land Deposit']

Source-derived case record

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 Determination in Equity Proceedings Concerning a Contract for the Sale of Land / On the Papers After Acceptance of an Offer of Compromise

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was entitled under UCPR r 42.13A(2) to its costs up to the date of making an accepted Offer of Compromise that made no provision for costs.' 'Whether the accepted offer proposed a judgment in favour of the plaintiff.' 'Whether the evidence established that the first defendant was a person under legal incapacity.' "Whether the first defendant's Cross-Claim should be dismissed with no order as to costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Offer of Compromise expressly proposed judgment for the plaintiff by requiring release to it of the whole deposit claimed, was accepted within the specified time, and complied with UCPR r 20.26. Because the offer made no provision for costs, UCPR r 42.13A(2) entitled the plaintiff to its costs of the claim on the ordinary basis up to 7 September 2017. The evidence did not establish that the first defendant was under legal incapacity, and no contrary submissions were filed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff awarded costs of its claim up to 7 September 2017; first defendant's Cross-Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs in relation to the plaintiff's claim on the ordinary basis up to 7 September 2017." "The first defendant's Cross-Claim be dismissed with no order as to costs."]