Blecher v Zou (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 224

Blecher v Zou (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 224

The plaintiff was successful and prima facie entitled to costs, but indemnity costs were not justified because the defendants' rejection of the 16 August 2023 offer was not unreasonable in the evidentiary circumstances then existing. Although the monetary amount in issue was within the jurisdiction of lower courts and the proceedings likely could have been commenced there, UCPR r 42.34 is not an inflexible bar to costs. Because the defendants effectively lost the proceedings, did not properly engage in settlement discussions, and had refused to allow remedial work offered free of charge, the appropriate order was that they pay 85% of the plaintiff's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Supreme Court Equity Proceedings / On the Papers After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Defendants ordered to pay 85% of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, as assessed or agreed.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'supreme Court Costs Where Judgment Is Less Than $500, 000' 'appropriate Court for Commencement and Continuation of Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs After Rejected Settlement Offer' 'declaratory Relief']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following the Event' 'supreme Court Costs Where Judgment Is Less Than $500,000' 'appropriate Court for Commencement and Continuation of Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs After Rejected Settlement Offer' 'declaratory Relief']

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 Determination in Supreme Court Equity Proceedings / On the Papers After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should pay the plaintiff's costs after the plaintiff succeeded in the proceedings." "Whether the defendants should pay indemnity costs from 25 August 2023 after rejecting the plaintiff's offer dated 16 August 2023." 'Whether UCPR r 42.34 was engaged because the amount in issue did not exceed $500,000 and the proceedings could have been commenced in a lower court.' 'Whether commencement and continuation of the proceedings in the Supreme Court, rather than a lower court, was warranted.' 'Whether any costs order should nevertheless be made despite UCPR r 42.34.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was successful and prima facie entitled to costs, but indemnity costs were not justified because the defendants' rejection of the 16 August 2023 offer was not unreasonable in the evidentiary circumstances then existing. Although the monetary amount in issue was within the jurisdiction of lower courts and the proceedings likely could have been commenced there, UCPR r 42.34 is not an inflexible bar to costs. Because the defendants effectively lost the proceedings, did not properly engage in settlement discussions, and had refused to allow remedial work offered free of charge, the appropriate order was that they pay 85% of the plaintiff's costs.

Court Disposition

Defendants ordered to pay 85% of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, as assessed or agreed.

Orders

  • ["The defendants are to pay 85% of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, as assessed or agreed."]