Wallis v Rudek (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 215

Wallis v Rudek (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 215

The plaintiffs rejected the defendant's Calderbank offer because they were not prepared to settle on terms that did not allow them to continue living at the property. The substantial issue litigated was whether they had that right, and they failed on that issue. The result demonstrated the unreasonableness of their position, so a special costs order was appropriate and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings, including the cross-claim, on an indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs in Equity Proceedings / Supplementary Ex Tempore Judgment After Principal Judgment, Making Final Orders and Determining Costs
Outcome
Final orders made requiring the defendant to pay equitable compensation to the plaintiffs, granting the defendant vacant possession of the Ground Floor Unit, declaring ownership of specified chattels, and ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings, including the cross-claim, on an...
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offer of Compromise' 'unreasonable Rejection of Settlement Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'equitable Compensation' 'vacant Possession']
['costs' 'equity'] ['party/party Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offer of Compromise' 'unreasonable Rejection of Settlement Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'equitable Compensation' 'vacant Possession']

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 in Equity Proceedings / Supplementary Ex Tempore Judgment After Principal Judgment, Making Final Orders and Determining Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event in favour of the plaintiffs because they obtained equitable compensation.' "Whether the plaintiffs unreasonably rejected the defendant's Calderbank offer dated 17 April 2018." "Whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings, including the cross-claim, on an indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs rejected the defendant's Calderbank offer because they were not prepared to settle on terms that did not allow them to continue living at the property. The substantial issue litigated was whether they had that right, and they failed on that issue. The result demonstrated the unreasonableness of their position, so a special costs order was appropriate and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings, including the cross-claim, on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Final orders made requiring the defendant to pay equitable compensation to the plaintiffs, granting the defendant vacant possession of the Ground Floor Unit, declaring ownership of specified chattels, and ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings, including the cross-claim, on an...

Orders

  • ['On the undertaking of the Second Plaintiff to repay all rental assistance welfare payments received by her in connection with her occupation of 2 Schofield Parade, Pennant Hills NSW 2120, together with any interest and penalties associated with such repayments, the Court made orders.' 'The defendant is to pay the...