Peter Rochester Gow v Cronulla Sutherland Leagues Club Limited (No 2) [2003] NSWIRComm 424

Peter Rochester Gow v Cronulla Sutherland Leagues Club Limited (No 2) [2003] NSWIRComm 424

The third respondent was entitled to costs because the application against him was dismissed and no specific cause of action had been formulated against him. Indemnity costs were refused because there were no exceptional circumstances. The 15 March 2001 Calderbank offer did not affect costs because it attempted to settle proceedings in two jurisdictions and did not allow the applicant to obtain taxed costs to date, so the Court could not assess whether it had been bettered. The 4 July 2001 Offer of Compromise engaged Rule 216(6) because the applicant did not obtain an order more favourable than the offer and showed no exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the rule. For costs...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment Re Costs After Substantive Judgment, With Costs Reserved
Outcome
Costs ordered in favour of the third respondent; first and second respondents awarded party/party costs from 4 July 2001; first and second respondents ordered to pay 80% of the applicant's party/party costs up to and including 4 July 2001.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'apportionment of Costs' 'section 106 Unfair Contracts']
['industrial Law' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'apportionment of Costs' 'section 106 Unfair Contracts']

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

Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment Re Costs After Substantive Judgment, With Costs Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the third respondent's costs after the application against the third respondent was dismissed." 'Whether indemnity costs should be awarded to the applicant.' "Whether the respondents' 15 March 2001 Calderbank offer should displace the customary costs order." "Whether Rule 216(6) of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996 applied to the respondents' 4 July 2001 Offer of Compromise." 'How costs incurred before 4 July 2001 should be apportioned.']

Ratio Decidendi

The third respondent was entitled to costs because the application against him was dismissed and no specific cause of action had been formulated against him. Indemnity costs were refused because there were no exceptional circumstances. The 15 March 2001 Calderbank offer did not affect costs because it attempted to settle proceedings in two jurisdictions and did not allow the applicant to obtain taxed costs to date, so the Court could not assess whether it had been bettered. The 4 July 2001 Offer of Compromise engaged Rule 216(6) because the applicant did not obtain an order more favourable than the offer and showed no exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the rule. For costs...

Court Disposition

Costs ordered in favour of the third respondent; first and second respondents awarded party/party costs from 4 July 2001; first and second respondents ordered to pay 80% of the applicant's party/party costs up to and including 4 July 2001.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the third respondent's costs of the proceedings." "The applicant pay the first and second respondents' party/party costs from 4 July 2001." "The first and second respondents pay 80% of the applicant's costs on a party/party basis up to and including 4 July 2001."]