Alsuleiman by her tutor Haimour v George (No 3)

Alsuleiman by her tutor Haimour v George (No 3) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, represented by a tutor, and the defendant. The nature of the dispute was related to costs following a legal proceeding, with the plaintiff seeking indemnity costs and the defendant arguing against it. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs, considering the general principle that costs follow the event and the rules governing offers of compromise and small judgment sums.

The court examined the applicable rules, particularly Rules 42.14 and 42.35 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, which pertain to the entitlement to indemnity costs and small judgment sums, respectively. The court needed to balance these rules against the general principle that costs follow the event and the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff argued for indemnity costs due to a perceived conflict in the rules, while the defendant contended that no such entitlement existed. The court had to decide whether the small judgment sum awarded to the plaintiff warranted an exception to the general principle of costs following the event.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the general principle that costs follow the event but noted that this principle may be set aside in certain circumstances, such as when a party makes an offer of compromise under Rule 42.14. However, the court held that the defendant was not entitled to indemnity costs because the small judgment sum awarded to the plaintiff did not justify setting aside the general principle. The court further found that there was no conflict between Rules 42.14 and 42.35, as each rule addressed different aspects of the entitlement to costs. Consequently, the defendant was not entitled to indemnity costs.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant would pay the plaintiff's costs on an ordinary basis up to and including 16 June 2017, and on an indemnity basis thereafter. This decision clarified the application of the rules governing offers of compromise and small judgment sums in the context of indemnity costs.