MOORE v WOODFORTH (NO 2) [2003] NSWCA 46

MOORE v WOODFORTH (NO 2) [2003] NSWCA 46

The slip rule correction is unopposed and is necessary to accurately reflect deduction for contributory negligence. The rejection of a favourable pre-trial offer is relevant but, absent renewal during appeal, does not compel variation of costs orders. The appellant succeeded in the appeal and costs should follow the event.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment; Application for Variation of Orders and Determination of Costs
Outcome
Order 2 varied to correct amount for future economic loss; costs of application to be appellant's costs in the appeal; no variation of existing costs orders.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'slip Rule' 'offer of Compromise' 'settlement' 'appeals']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'slip Rule' 'offer of Compromise' 'settlement' 'appeals']

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

Appeal / Post Judgment; Application for Variation of Orders and Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 2 should be varied under the slip rule to correct future economic loss for contributory negligence' 'Whether costs orders should be varied due to rejection of pre-trial settlement offers']

Ratio Decidendi

The slip rule correction is unopposed and is necessary to accurately reflect deduction for contributory negligence. The rejection of a favourable pre-trial offer is relevant but, absent renewal during appeal, does not compel variation of costs orders. The appellant succeeded in the appeal and costs should follow the event.

Court Disposition

Order 2 varied to correct amount for future economic loss; costs of application to be appellant's costs in the appeal; no variation of existing costs orders.

Orders

  • ["Vary Order 2 made on 6 February 2003 by substituting '$240,711' in lieu of '$256,804'." "Costs of the present application to be the appellant's costs in the appeal."]