WARKWORTH MINING COMPANY PTY LIMITED v O'CONNOR [1996] NSWCA 546

WARKWORTH MINING COMPANY PTY LIMITED v O'CONNOR [1996] NSWCA 546

The offer of compromise was invalid for purposes of Pt 52A r 22 due to its costs term, but in the circumstances of unexplained discontinuance after lengthy delay, the court exercised inherent jurisdiction to award indemnity costs from one week after the offer onward.

Parties
Appellant: Warkworth Mining Company Pty Limited; Respondent: O'Connor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Costs Following Discontinuance
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Costs, Offers of Compromise, Discontinuance of Appeal, Indemnity Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Offers of Compromise Discontinuance of Appeal 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warkworth Mining Company Pty Limited

Appellant

O'Connor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Costs Following Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent is entitled to indemnity costs after appeal was discontinued
  2. 2 Effect of offer of compromise including term each party bear own costs under Pt 52A r 22 of Supreme Court Rules
  3. 3 Court's inherent jurisdiction to award indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The offer of compromise was invalid for purposes of Pt 52A r 22 due to its costs term, but in the circumstances of unexplained discontinuance after lengthy delay, the court exercised inherent jurisdiction to award indemnity costs from one week after the offer onward.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs of appeal on party and party basis until 27 January 1994, and thereafter on indemnity basis
  • Appellant also to pay respondent's costs of the application