Carroll v United Super Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1101

Carroll v United Super Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1101

Plaintiff is not entitled to indemnity costs as offers of compromise were not reasonable to accept at the relevant time due to late disclosure of critical evidence; plaintiff's conduct prolonged the proceedings but did not warrant depriving him entirely of costs, thus defendants ordered to pay 80% of plaintiff’s costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity / Costs Determination Following Final Judgment
Outcome
Defendants ordered to pay 80% of plaintiff's costs on ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'disentitling Conduct']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'disentitling Conduct']

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

Equity / Costs Determination Following Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event' 'Whether offers of compromise justify indemnity costs' 'Whether plaintiff should be deprived of costs due to conduct']

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff is not entitled to indemnity costs as offers of compromise were not reasonable to accept at the relevant time due to late disclosure of critical evidence; plaintiff's conduct prolonged the proceedings but did not warrant depriving him entirely of costs, thus defendants ordered to pay 80% of plaintiff’s costs.

Court Disposition

Defendants ordered to pay 80% of plaintiff's costs on ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ["Defendants pay 80 per cent of plaintiff's costs of proceedings." 'Costs to be assessed on ordinary basis.' 'Order includes costs of argument in relation to costs.']