MARICIC v DALMA FORMWORK (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & ANOR (NO. 2) [2006] NSWCA 237

MARICIC v DALMA FORMWORK (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & ANOR (NO. 2) [2006] NSWCA 237

The Court refused to reserve the appellant's appeal costs because, although the offers of compromise were relevant, the better view was that r 20.26 was not applicable in the circumstances of the appeal and it was undesirable, consistently with s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), to leave completed Court of Appeal proceedings pending until the District Court determined damages. Costs should therefore follow the event in the Court of Appeal. The Court granted a limited order concerning the dismissed cross-appeal because the respondents reasonably joined the employer to protect their interests while the appellant had not conceded that he could not meet the 15% permanent impairment...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Appeal / New South Wales Court of Appeal Application to Vary Costs Orders After Judgment Delivered on 30 June 2006
Outcome
Orders made on 30 June 2006 amended by adding Order 5A; the respondents' request to reserve the appellant's costs of the appeal was not accepted.
Legal Topics
['offers of Compromise' 'costs of Appeal' 'bullock Order' 'cross Appeal Against Employer' 'permanent Impairment Threshold']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'workers Compensation'] ['offers of Compromise' 'costs of Appeal' 'bullock Order' 'cross Appeal Against Employer' 'permanent Impairment Threshold']

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 Application in Appeal / New South Wales Court of Appeal Application to Vary Costs Orders After Judgment Delivered on 30 June 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's costs of the appeal should be reserved and determined after the further hearing in the District Court because offers of compromise had been made during the District Court proceedings and during the appeal." 'Whether r 20.26 and r 42.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 applied to an offer of compromise made during the appeal in circumstances where damages remained to be assessed in the District Court.' "Whether the appellant should pay the cross-respondent employer's costs of the cross-appeal from 14 May 2006 because the appellant did not earlier concede that he could not establish at least 15% permanent impairment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to reserve the appellant's appeal costs because, although the offers of compromise were relevant, the better view was that r 20.26 was not applicable in the circumstances of the appeal and it was undesirable, consistently with s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), to leave completed Court of Appeal proceedings pending until the District Court determined damages. Costs should therefore follow the event in the Court of Appeal. The Court granted a limited order concerning the dismissed cross-appeal because the respondents reasonably joined the employer to protect their interests while the appellant had not conceded that he could not meet the 15% permanent impairment...

Court Disposition

Orders made on 30 June 2006 amended by adding Order 5A; the respondents' request to reserve the appellant's costs of the appeal was not accepted.

Orders

  • ['Amend the orders made by this Court on 30 June 2006 by adding the following order:' "(5A) Order the Appellant to pay to the Respondents the cross-respondent's costs of the cross-appeal from 14 May 2006."]