TJN Constructions Pty Ltd t/a Copperwood Construct v Karonen; Karonen v TJN Constructions Pty Ltd t/a Copperwood Construct (No 2) [2022] NSWCATCD 176

TJN Constructions Pty Ltd t/a Copperwood Construct v Karonen; Karonen v TJN Constructions Pty Ltd t/a Copperwood Construct (No 2) [2022] NSWCATCD 176

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under cl 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 to order 80% of costs be paid to the builder by the owner in both application and cross-application, having regard to the limited success of the owner, the reasonable but ultimately unsuccessful claim against Mr Prentice, and the complexities of jointly represented, financially linked parties. The Calderbank offers did not unreasonably warrant indemnity costs and the circumstances did not justify a Sanderson order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Application and Cross Application for Costs / Costs Determination After Substantive Decision
Outcome
Costs orders made: 80% of costs to be paid by owner in favour of builder in one proceeding, and 80% of costs to be paid by the applicant to the respondent in the cross-application.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order']
['civil Procedure' 'building and Construction Law'] ['costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'sanderson Order' 'bullock Order']

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

Application and Cross Application for Costs / Costs Determination After Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Calderbank offers were unreasonably refused and whether indemnity costs should be awarded' 'Whether a Sanderson order should be made against the unsuccessful respondent regarding costs incurred by the successful respondent']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under cl 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 to order 80% of costs be paid to the builder by the owner in both application and cross-application, having regard to the limited success of the owner, the reasonable but ultimately unsuccessful claim against Mr Prentice, and the complexities of jointly represented, financially linked parties. The Calderbank offers did not unreasonably warrant indemnity costs and the circumstances did not justify a Sanderson order.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made: 80% of costs to be paid by owner in favour of builder in one proceeding, and 80% of costs to be paid by the applicant to the respondent in the cross-application.

Orders

  • ["In HB 21/25024: (1) Tribunal dispenses with a hearing on costs; (2) First respondent is to pay 80% of the applicant's costs, on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed." "In HB 21/40311: (1) Tribunal dispenses with a hearing on costs; (2) Applicant is to pay 80% of the respondent's costs, on the ordinary basis,...