Whitney v Dream Developments Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 188

Whitney v Dream Developments Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 188

An offer of compromise providing for payment of costs as agreed or assessed was not exclusive of costs and therefore not compliant with r 20.26; such an offer cannot operate as a Calderbank offer in the absence of an indication that it is intended to be relied upon for costs regardless of compliance with the rules.

Parties
Appellant: Samuel Whitney; Respondent: Dream Developments Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs, Offer of Compromise, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Costs Offer of Compromise Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Whitney

Appellant

Dream Developments Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an offer including 'costs as agreed or assessed' is compliant with r 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
  2. 2 Whether a non-compliant offer under r 20.26 can operate as a Calderbank offer

Ratio Decidendi

An offer of compromise providing for payment of costs as agreed or assessed was not exclusive of costs and therefore not compliant with r 20.26; such an offer cannot operate as a Calderbank offer in the absence of an indication that it is intended to be relied upon for costs regardless of compliance with the rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the orders made by Adams J on 23 February 2012 be set aside.
  • Orders 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the orders made by Adams J on 31 May 2012 be set aside.