Williams, William v Williams, William (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 69

Williams, William v Williams, William (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 69

The plaintiff was entitled to ordinary costs because he succeeded and the conditional costs arrangements created a sufficient liability to satisfy the indemnity principle. Indemnity costs were refused: the defendant's non-acceptance of the 8 October 2020 Calderbank offer was not shown to be unreasonable given the early stage, the absence of an articulated legal basis ultimately relied on, and the short 14-day period; the 11 October 2022 UCPR offer was not valid because it was not open for a reasonable period in the circumstances; and, treating that offer as a Calderbank offer, the defendant's rejection as a self-represented litigant was not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Application / Post Judgment Application for Ordinary and Indemnity Costs
Outcome
The plaintiff obtained costs on the ordinary basis; indemnity costs were refused.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Principle' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'litigants in Person']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Principle' 'offers of Compromise' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'litigants in Person']

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 Costs Application / Post Judgment Application for Ordinary and Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs despite the conditional nature of his costs liability.' "Whether the defendant's failure to accept the 8 October 2020 Calderbank offer justified indemnity costs for the whole proceedings." 'Whether the 11 October 2022 offer of compromise was a valid offer under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the 11 October 2022 offer should nevertheless be treated as a Calderbank offer justifying indemnity costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was entitled to ordinary costs because he succeeded and the conditional costs arrangements created a sufficient liability to satisfy the indemnity principle. Indemnity costs were refused: the defendant's non-acceptance of the 8 October 2020 Calderbank offer was not shown to be unreasonable given the early stage, the absence of an articulated legal basis ultimately relied on, and the short 14-day period; the 11 October 2022 UCPR offer was not valid because it was not open for a reasonable period in the circumstances; and, treating that offer as a Calderbank offer, the defendant's rejection as a self-represented litigant was not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff obtained costs on the ordinary basis; indemnity costs were refused.

Orders

  • ["The defendant will pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed."]