Camuglia v Housman & Ors (2) [2020] NSWDC 518

Camuglia v Housman & Ors (2) [2020] NSWDC 518

Because the parties agreed that the rectification works figure used in the earlier judgment was erroneous, the slip rule was enlivened and the judgment sum was amended. The Calderbank offer was a genuine and substantial compromise, made after pleadings had closed and after the plaintiff had served evidence in chief; the defendants did not seek particulars of costs or more time to consider the offer, and their rejection of the offer was unreasonable. Indemnity costs were therefore appropriate from 7 September 2019.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Consequential Orders: Slip Rule Correction and Costs Application
Outcome
Judgment and verdict for the plaintiff against the defendants, with costs ordered on an ordinary basis up to and including 7 September 2019 and on a full indemnity basis thereafter.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'correction of Judgment Sum' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['slip Rule' 'correction of Judgment Sum' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer']

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 / Consequential Orders: Slip Rule Correction and Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judgment sum should be corrected under the slip rule because the quantum of rectification works was misstated.' "Whether the defendants' rejection of the plaintiff's Calderbank offer was unreasonable so as to justify indemnity costs from the date the offer expired."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties agreed that the rectification works figure used in the earlier judgment was erroneous, the slip rule was enlivened and the judgment sum was amended. The Calderbank offer was a genuine and substantial compromise, made after pleadings had closed and after the plaintiff had served evidence in chief; the defendants did not seek particulars of costs or more time to consider the offer, and their rejection of the offer was unreasonable. Indemnity costs were therefore appropriate from 7 September 2019.

Court Disposition

Judgment and verdict for the plaintiff against the defendants, with costs ordered on an ordinary basis up to and including 7 September 2019 and on a full indemnity basis thereafter.

Orders

  • ['Judgment and verdict for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $231,316.32.' "That the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs on an ordinary basis up to and including 7 September 2019, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter."]