Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Platinum Investments Management Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 197

Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Platinum Investments Management Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 197

It was not unreasonable for the taxpayer to reject the Commissioner's Calderbank offer because the offer did not deal with the separate assessment concerning other deeds and was not clarified after the taxpayer raised that issue. Accordingly, indemnity costs were refused, while the unopposed variation correcting...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Motion in Court of Appeal / Notice of Motion Seeking Indemnity Costs and Variation of an Order, Determined on the Papers After Appeal Allowed
Outcome
Order varied; motion otherwise dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'issue Estoppel' 'res Judicata' 'variation of Orders']
['costs' 'taxation and Duties' 'civil Procedure'] ['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'issue Estoppel' 'res Judicata' 'variation of Orders']

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 Motion in Court of Appeal / Notice of Motion Seeking Indemnity Costs and Variation of an Order, Determined on the Papers After Appeal Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's rejection of the Commissioner's Calderbank offer was unreasonable so as to justify indemnity costs." 'Whether Order 2 made by the Court on 10 March 2010 should be varied to correct the date.' 'Whether uncertainty about the effect of settlement on other assessments concerning other deeds justified rejection of the offer.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not unreasonable for the taxpayer to reject the Commissioner's Calderbank offer because the offer did not deal with the separate assessment concerning other deeds and was not clarified after the taxpayer raised that issue. Accordingly, indemnity costs were refused, while the unopposed variation correcting Order 2 was made.

Court Disposition

Order varied; motion otherwise dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Order 2 made by this Court on 10 March 2010 varied to read: "Judgment of Gzell J of 2 February 2010 set aside".' 'Notice of motion of 10 March 2011 otherwise dismissed.' "Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the motion."]