Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (No 2) [2000] NSWCA 102

Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (No 2) [2000] NSWCA 102

The respondent was not entitled to indemnity costs because Pt 52A r 22(6) did not apply: the appellant, as plaintiff in the appeal, obtained no order or judgment on the claim, and even if the rule had operated it would only have produced party and party costs rather than indemnity costs. The respondent did not rely on the general law, and in any event neither the appellant's conduct of the appeal nor the relative strengths of the parties' cases supported an indemnity costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Civil Appeal / After Dismissal of Appeal; Decided on Written Submissions
Outcome
The respondent's application for indemnity costs was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'unaccepted Offers of Compromise' 'party and Party Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'offers of Compromise' 'unaccepted Offers of Compromise' 'party and Party 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 Application in Civil Appeal / After Dismissal of Appeal; Decided on Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was entitled to have the appellant pay the costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis by reason of unaccepted offers of compromise.' 'Whether Pt 52A r 22(6) of the Supreme Court Rules applied where the appellant obtained no order or judgment on the claim.' 'Whether the Court was functus officio after making the costs order on 29 March 2000.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not entitled to indemnity costs because Pt 52A r 22(6) did not apply: the appellant, as plaintiff in the appeal, obtained no order or judgment on the claim, and even if the rule had operated it would only have produced party and party costs rather than indemnity costs. The respondent did not rely on the general law, and in any event neither the appellant's conduct of the appeal nor the relative strengths of the parties' cases supported an indemnity costs order.

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for indemnity costs was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application for indemnity costs is dismissed." 'No order as to the costs of the application.']