Richtoll Pty Ltd v WW Lawyers (in Liquidation) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 578

Richtoll Pty Ltd v WW Lawyers (in Liquidation) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 578

The defendant's offer of compromise complied with UCPR Rule 20.26, the defendant obtained an order or judgment no less favourable to it than the terms of the offer, the plaintiffs gave no reason why the offer was not accepted, and nothing in the conduct of the trial required the Court to order otherwise; accordingly the defendant was entitled to the special costs order sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers After Principal Judgment; Defendant's Application for a Special Costs Order
Outcome
The defendant's application for a special costs order was granted and the costs order made on 19 April 2016 was set aside and replaced.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'variation of Costs Order' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'variation of Costs Order' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules']

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 / On the Papers After Principal Judgment; Defendant's Application for a Special Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's offer of compromise complied with UCPR Rule 20.26." "Whether, because the defendant obtained an order or judgment no less favourable than the terms of the offer, the plaintiffs should pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis from the day after the offer was made unless the Court otherwise orders." 'Whether there was any reason for the Court to order otherwise.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's offer of compromise complied with UCPR Rule 20.26, the defendant obtained an order or judgment no less favourable to it than the terms of the offer, the plaintiffs gave no reason why the offer was not accepted, and nothing in the conduct of the trial required the Court to order otherwise; accordingly the defendant was entitled to the special costs order sought.

Court Disposition

The defendant's application for a special costs order was granted and the costs order made on 19 April 2016 was set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • ['The costs order made in this matter on 19 April 2016 is set aside.' "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant's costs on an ordinary basis up to and including 2 September 2015 and on an indemnity basis from 3 September 2015."]