Al Haje v Elassaad (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 794

Al Haje v Elassaad (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 794

While some factors favoured the defendant, the need for freezing orders justified proceedings in the Supreme Court. Up to 29 April 2024, costs were split as a fair compromise; after a reasonable Calderbank offer was rejected, the defendant was liable for indemnity costs.

Parties
Plaintiff: Wisam Al Haje; Defendant: Mohammad Elassaad
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment – Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs determined; plaintiff awarded costs with apportionment and basis specified.
Legal Topics
Application of UCPR R 42.34, Calderbank Offer, Indemnity Costs, Costs Assessment, Jurisdictional Issues

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wisam Al Haje

Plaintiff

Mohammad Elassaad

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment – Costs Determination

  1. 1 Whether Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.34 applies where the plaintiff recovers less than $500,000
  2. 2 Whether commencement and continuation in Supreme Court (rather than District Court) was warranted
  3. 3 Entitlement to indemnity costs after Calderbank offer

Ratio Decidendi

While some factors favoured the defendant, the need for freezing orders justified proceedings in the Supreme Court. Up to 29 April 2024, costs were split as a fair compromise; after a reasonable Calderbank offer was rejected, the defendant was liable for indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Costs determined; plaintiff awarded costs with apportionment and basis specified.

Orders

  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
  • Plaintiff's costs are to be assessed on an ordinary basis up to and including 29 April 2024.