Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.3) [2024] NSWSC 53

Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.3) [2024] NSWSC 53

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the First and Second Offers did not comply with r 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The costs term was unclear because it did not identify the earlier costs order and was open to multiple interpretations, including set-off, separate enforcement, or vacation of the earlier order. The Fullerton Health term was also vague and imprecise because the amount and nature of any repayment, indemnity, or reimbursement obligation were not established or clearly allocated. More fundamentally, the offers did not identify the proposed orders for disposal of the claim as required by r 20.26(a)(ii). Because the plaintiff relied only on the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Motion Following Judgment in Personal Injury Proceedings / Consequential Orders; Notice of Motion Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'ucpr R 20.26' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Consequences of Unaccepted Offers' 'precision of Settlement Offers']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'personal Injury'] ['offer of Compromise' 'ucpr R 20.26' 'indemnity Costs' 'costs Consequences of Unaccepted Offers' 'precision of Settlement 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

Costs Motion Following Judgment in Personal Injury Proceedings / Consequential Orders; Notice of Motion Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's First Offer and Second Offer complied with r 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005." 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled under r 42.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 to indemnity costs after the dates of the offers.' 'Whether the costs term requiring costs to be paid clear of previous costs orders was sufficiently clear and precise.' 'Whether the term concerning payments made by Fullerton Health Pty Ltd was sufficiently clear and precise.' 'Whether the offers identified the proposed orders for disposal of the claim as required by r 20.26(a)(ii).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the First and Second Offers did not comply with r 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The costs term was unclear because it did not identify the earlier costs order and was open to multiple interpretations, including set-off, separate enforcement, or vacation of the earlier order. The Fullerton Health term was also vague and imprecise because the amount and nature of any repayment, indemnity, or reimbursement obligation were not established or clearly allocated. More fundamentally, the offers did not identify the proposed orders for disposal of the claim as required by r 20.26(a)(ii). Because the plaintiff relied only on the...

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff on 7 November 2023 is dismissed.' "Order the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the Motion."]