Doyle v Webb (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 611

Doyle v Webb (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 611

The defendant was the successful party because the plaintiff's substantive claims failed and the statutory payments under ss 83 and 84A left no recoverable amount; the late s 84A(3) defence did not justify depriving the defendant of costs, as even without it the plaintiff would have recovered only $1,167.71. Since there was no challenge to the engagement of r 42.15A and no exceptional reason not to apply it, the defendant was entitled to ordinary costs up to 6 June 2019 and indemnity costs from 7 June 2019.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages for Personal Injury Following a Motor Vehicle Accident / Costs and Dispositive Orders After Reasons for Judgment, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant; plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis up to 6 June 2019 and on an indemnity basis from 7 June 2019, as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'advance Payments' 'out of Pocket Expenses']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'motor Accidents Compensation' 'personal Injury'] ['offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'advance Payments' 'out of Pocket Expenses']

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

Civil Claim for Damages for Personal Injury Following a Motor Vehicle Accident / Costs and Dispositive Orders After Reasons for Judgment, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether judgment should be entered for the defendant after statutory payments exceeded the balance of the plaintiff's award for past out of pocket expenses." 'Whether the plaintiff should receive costs or the defendant should receive costs of the proceeding.' 'Whether the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs from 7 June 2019 by reason of an offer of compromise or alternatively a Calderbank offer.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was the successful party because the plaintiff's substantive claims failed and the statutory payments under ss 83 and 84A left no recoverable amount; the late s 84A(3) defence did not justify depriving the defendant of costs, as even without it the plaintiff would have recovered only $1,167.71. Since there was no challenge to the engagement of r 42.15A and no exceptional reason not to apply it, the defendant was entitled to ordinary costs up to 6 June 2019 and indemnity costs from 7 June 2019.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant; plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on the ordinary basis up to 6 June 2019 and on an indemnity basis from 7 June 2019, as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendant.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding up to 6 June 2019, on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding from 7 June 2019, on an indemnity basis, as agreed or assessed."]