ANDERSON -v- McPHERSON [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 (S2)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 19 (S2)
Case No:	CIV:2210/2007	Heard:	3-6 OCTOBER & 24 NOVEMBER 2011 & 2 MARCH 2012
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	25/01/12
Supplementary Delivered:	8/03/12
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BRUCE WILLIAM ANDERSON CAROLYN ANDERSON STEPHANNIE MARRIEE McPHERSON TROY KENNON ANDERSON
Catchwords:	Costs Order 24A offer of compromise Whether offer by plaintiffs more favourable to first defendant than orders made Method of valuing offer Similar offer of compromise made by first defendant Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 1979, O 23 r 11(6) Federal Court Rules 2011, r 25.14 Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 126 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 24A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.15A
Case References:	Anderson v McPherson [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ANDERSON -v- McPHERSON [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 (S2) CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 3-6 OCTOBER & 24 NOVEMBER 2011 & 2 MARCH 2012 DELIVERED : 25 JANUARY 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 8 MARCH 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 2210 of 2007 BETWEEN : BRUCE WILLIAM ANDERSON

First Plaintiff

CAROLYN ANDERSON

Second Plaintiff

AND

STEPHANNIE MARRIEE McPHERSON

First Defendant

TROY KENNON ANDERSON

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Order 24A offer of compromise - Whether offer by plaintiffs more favourable to first defendant than orders made - Method of valuing offer - Similar offer of compromise made by first defendant - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Federal Court Rules 1979, O 23 r 11(6)

Federal Court Rules 2011, r 25.14
Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 126
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 24A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.15A

Result:

Costs orders made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr A P Rumsley

Second Plaintiff : Mr A P Rumsley

First Defendant : Mr D J Morris

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Alan Rumsley

Second Plaintiff : Alan Rumsley

First Defendant : Bruce Havilah & Associates

Second Defendant : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Anderson v McPherson [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 (S)

(Page 3)

1 EDELMAN J: This issue concerning the appropriate orders as to costs was deferred pending my decision on the other orders. Submissions as to costs orders were made at the conclusion of my oral reasons for decision on the other orders. The submissions ran past the end of the day and counsel were content that these reasons and my proposed costs orders would be provided by email, with liberty to apply in relation to the costs orders if any further matters arose from these reasons.

2 The plaintiffs sought various orders in their prayer for relief. These included an order for sale of the Anstey Road Property, a declaration concerning…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v McPHERSON [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Anderson v McPHERSON [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 (S2)
Case: [2012] WASC 19 (S2)
Decision Date: 25 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Anderson v McPherson [No 2] involved the plaintiffs, Anderson, seeking to determine whether an offer of compromise made by the defendants, McPherson, was more favourable to the first defendant than the orders subsequently made. The dispute arose from a legal action initiated by the plaintiffs, which involved complex issues of costs and offers of compromise. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the offer of compromise made by the plaintiffs was more favourable to the first defendant than the orders that were ultimately made by the court. This required the court to consider the terms of the offer, the orders made, and the method of valuation to determine which was more advantageous. The court also had to consider a similar offer of compromise made by the first defendant, and how it compared to the plaintiffs' offer.

The court found that the method of valuing the offer of compromise was critical in determining its favourability. It concluded that the offer made by the plaintiffs was indeed more favourable to the first defendant than the orders made. This was based on a detailed comparison of the terms of the offers and the orders. The court took into account the specific facts of the case, including the nature of the legal issues and the outcomes sought by each party. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and submissions presented.

The court made a costs order in favour of the plaintiffs, recognising that their offer of compromise was more favourable to the first defendant. This decision underscores the importance of detailed valuation in determining the favourability of offers of compromise in litigation. The orders reflect the court's determination that the plaintiffs' offer was more advantageous, and thus entitled them to the costs awarded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Costs orders made

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.