THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT v GARDIKIOTIS [1994] NSWCA 236

Given the application of Supreme Court Rules Pt22 and Pt52, r17, and the respondent's enhanced verdict following a rejected offer of compromise, the respondent is entitled to indemnity costs after the date of the offer.

Parties: Appellant: The Nominal Defendant; Respondent/cross Appellant: Gardikiotis
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 23 June 1994
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Costs Determination After Appellate Judgment
Outcome: Respondent awarded indemnity costs after 11 June 1993. Appellant to pay cross-appellant's costs of the cross-appeal with Suitor's Fund Act certificate.
Legal Topics: Costs, Offer of Compromise, Indemnity Costs

Civil Procedure Costs Offer of Compromise Indemnity Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

The Nominal Defendant

Appellant

Gardikiotis

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination After Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondent is entitled to indemnity costs following an offer of compromise under Pt22 and Pt52 r17 of the Supreme Court Rules.
2 Whether the appellant's refusal to settle was reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Respondent awarded indemnity costs after 11 June 1993. Appellant to pay cross-appellant's costs of the cross-appeal with Suitor's Fund Act certificate.

Orders

Order the appellant to pay the cross-appellant the costs of the cross-appeal, but to have a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act, 1951.
All the respondent/cross-appellant's costs after 11 June 1993 are to be paid on an indemnity basis.