Alcock v KEM Projects Pty Ltd (No 2)
Case
•
[2023] ACTMC 35
•21 September 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Alcock v KEM Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] ACTMC 35
[2023] ACTMC 35
21 September 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Alcock v KEM Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) involved the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Alcock, suing the defendants for damages related to a construction project. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs alleged breaches of contract, negligence, and misleading or deceptive conduct by the defendants in relation to the construction of a residential property. The defendants denied the allegations and counterclaimed for payment and damages.
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties, given the plaintiffs had achieved partial success on their claims. The plaintiffs had succeeded on their claims for damages relating to the defective construction, but failed on their claims for exemplary damages, loss of use, and certain other heads of damages. The defendants, on the other hand, were unsuccessful on all counts. The court also considered a Calderbank offer made by the plaintiffs, which was refused by the defendants.
The court held that costs should follow the event, with the unsuccessful party bearing the costs of the successful party. The court found that the plaintiffs' success was not overwhelming, and therefore, the defendants should not bear the full costs of the plaintiffs. The court declined to award costs for the unsuccessful claims, noting that the plaintiffs had not succeeded on those claims. The court also found that the refusal of the Calderbank offer did not warrant an award of costs against the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, subject to certain adjustments for the unsuccessful claims and the Calderbank offer.
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties, given the plaintiffs had achieved partial success on their claims. The plaintiffs had succeeded on their claims for damages relating to the defective construction, but failed on their claims for exemplary damages, loss of use, and certain other heads of damages. The defendants, on the other hand, were unsuccessful on all counts. The court also considered a Calderbank offer made by the plaintiffs, which was refused by the defendants.
The court held that costs should follow the event, with the unsuccessful party bearing the costs of the successful party. The court found that the plaintiffs' success was not overwhelming, and therefore, the defendants should not bear the full costs of the plaintiffs. The court declined to award costs for the unsuccessful claims, noting that the plaintiffs had not succeeded on those claims. The court also found that the refusal of the Calderbank offer did not warrant an award of costs against the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, subject to certain adjustments for the unsuccessful claims and the Calderbank offer.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Calderbank Offer
-
Mixed Success
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
25
Statutory Material Cited
3
Alcock v KEM Projects Pty Ltd
[2020] ACTMC 9
Allen v Wilson (No 2)
[2023] ACTSC 102
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green
[2004] NSWCA 341