Mid-City Skin Cancer and Laser Centre v Zahedi-Anarak & Ors [2006] NSWSC 684

Mid-City Skin Cancer and Laser Centre v Zahedi-Anarak & Ors [2006] NSWSC 684

The offer of compromise was validly made pursuant to UCPR r 20.26 and was exclusive of costs. As no time for acceptance was specified, UCPR r 20.25 provided a statutory period of 28 days, which expired before the attempted acceptance by the plaintiff. As such, there was no concluded and enforceable settlement...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: The Mid-City Skin Cancer and Laser Centre Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Dr Ali Zahedi-Anarak; Second Defendant: Idameneo (No 123) Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: L W Kernot Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Laurence William Kernot
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings—application for Specific Performance of Alleged Settlement Agreement / Interlocutory Application—ex Tempore Judgment Dismissing Application for Specific Performance
Outcome
Plaintiff's summons dismissed. Costs ordered against plaintiff on ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Settlement and Compromise, Offers of Compromise, Costs
Practice and Procedure Equity Specific Performance Settlement and Compromise Offers of Compromise Costs

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mid-City Skin Cancer and Laser Centre Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Dr Ali Zahedi-Anarak

First Defendant

Idameneo (No 123) Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

L W Kernot Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Laurence William Kernot

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings—application for Specific Performance of Alleged Settlement Agreement / Interlocutory Application—ex Tempore Judgment Dismissing Application for Specific Performance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a settlement offer was made and accepted so as to be specifically enforceable
  2. 2 Whether offer of compromise was valid under UCPR r 20.26
  3. 3 Whether time for acceptance was validly extended or expired

Ratio Decidendi

The offer of compromise was validly made pursuant to UCPR r 20.26 and was exclusive of costs. As no time for acceptance was specified, UCPR r 20.25 provided a statutory period of 28 days, which expired before the attempted acceptance by the plaintiff. As such, there was no concluded and enforceable settlement agreement. The plaintiff's application for specific performance was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's summons dismissed. Costs ordered against plaintiff on ordinary basis.

Orders

  • Summons filed on 27 June 2006 dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of that summons.