TINYOW v LEE & Anor [2006] NSWCA 247

TINYOW v LEE & Anor [2006] NSWCA 247

It was not unreasonable for the respondents to let the offer expire without response, given the insufficient affidavit evidence for damages at the time and the brief period for consideration before the hearing; therefore, indemnity costs are not warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Indemnity Costs / Post Appeal, Costs Application
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers']

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 for Indemnity Costs / Post Appeal, Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should the appellant receive indemnity costs from 10 May 2004 based on a Calderbank letter offer?']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not unreasonable for the respondents to let the offer expire without response, given the insufficient affidavit evidence for damages at the time and the brief period for consideration before the hearing; therefore, indemnity costs are not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's application for indemnity costs is dismissed with costs." 'No variation should be made to earlier orders.']