Source & Resources Pty Ltd v Porada (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 986

Source & Resources Pty Ltd v Porada (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 986

Because the proceedings included a damages claim concerning maintenance of the caveat on unreasonable grounds, and the plaintiff failed on that claim, if a substantial part of the claimed costs was devoted to that damages case it was appropriate for the defendants to reject the 18 April 2007 offer. Given the nature of the failed damages claim, the issues should not be divided and the plaintiff should not receive some costs; the appropriate course was no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Proceedings Concerning Rescission of a Contract for Sale of Land and a Caveat / Ex Tempore Judgment on Contested Costs Application
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'costs Discretion' 'rescission of Contract for Sale of Land' 'caveat' 'damages for Maintenance of Caveat on Unreasonable Grounds']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'property Law' 'contract Law'] ['offer of Compromise' 'costs Discretion' 'rescission of Contract for Sale of Land' 'caveat' 'damages for Maintenance of Caveat on Unreasonable Grounds']

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

Costs Application in Proceedings Concerning Rescission of a Contract for Sale of Land and a Caveat / Ex Tempore Judgment on Contested Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants were unreasonable in rejecting the plaintiff's 18 April 2007 offer that included payment of costs fixed at $11,500.00." 'Whether the plaintiff should receive some costs despite failing on its damages claim concerning maintenance of the caveat.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proceedings included a damages claim concerning maintenance of the caveat on unreasonable grounds, and the plaintiff failed on that claim, if a substantial part of the claimed costs was devoted to that damages case it was appropriate for the defendants to reject the 18 April 2007 offer. Given the nature of the failed damages claim, the issues should not be divided and the plaintiff should not receive some costs; the appropriate course was no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['No order as to costs of the proceedings.' 'Orders in terms of the short minutes of order amended by Gzell J, initialled, dated and placed with the papers.']