Murton v TD Preece and Co. Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 67

Murton v TD Preece and Co. Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 67

Rule 216(8) required the Court, when comparing the judgment order with the offer of compromise for rule 216(4) costs purposes, to disregard interest relating to the period after the offer was made. Only interest from the filing of the summons to the date of the offer could be considered, producing $14,901.11, which was not no less favourable than the offer of compromise. The applicant therefore failed to establish entitlement to indemnity costs under rule 216(4).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Costs Application Following Judgment / Application for Costs After Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's application for costs under rule 216(4) was dismissed; the respondent's application for apportionment of costs was dismissed; the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'interest on Judgment Sum' 'industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996 R 216(4)' 'industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996 R 216(8)']
['industrial Law' 'costs' 'unfair Contracts'] ['offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'interest on Judgment Sum' 'industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996 R 216(4)' 'industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996 R 216(8)']

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 S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Costs Application Following Judgment / Application for Costs After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant obtained an order no less favourable than the terms of his offer of compromise for the purposes of rule 216(4) of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996.' 'Whether interest should be included when comparing the judgment order with the offer of compromise.' 'If interest is included, what period of interest should be considered under rule 216(8).' 'Whether costs should be apportioned.']

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 216(8) required the Court, when comparing the judgment order with the offer of compromise for rule 216(4) costs purposes, to disregard interest relating to the period after the offer was made. Only interest from the filing of the summons to the date of the offer could be considered, producing $14,901.11, which was not no less favourable than the offer of compromise. The applicant therefore failed to establish entitlement to indemnity costs under rule 216(4).

Court Disposition

The applicant's application for costs under rule 216(4) was dismissed; the respondent's application for apportionment of costs was dismissed; the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for costs under rule 216(4) of the IRC Rules is dismissed." "The respondent's application for an apportionment of costs is dismissed." "The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed."]