New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: ATKINSON v ZEY; ZEY v ATKINSON [2008] NSWCA 30 HEARING DATE(S): 10 March 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:
13 March 2008JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1; Handley AJA at 23 DECISION: In Mr Atkinson’s application, matter no. CA 40324/07:
(1) Extend time for service of the holding summons filed on 25 May 2007 to the date of receipt by the respondent’s legal representative.
(2) Grant leave to appeal in respect of the costs order of 27 April 2007.
(3) Direct the applicant to file the notice of appeal within 7 days.
(4) Allow the appeal and set aside the order made in the District Court on 27 April 2007 and in lieu thereof:
(a) pursuant to Schedule 6, cl 5(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, dispense with the requirements of r 42.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in relation to the cost consequences of the offer of compromise made by the defendant in the District Court on 1 August 2005;
(b) order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs in respect of the claim in the District Court up to and including 1 August 2005 and the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs in respect of the claim thereafter, assessed in each case on a party and party basis.(5) Order the respondent to pay the costs of the applicant in this Court.
(6) Grant the respondent a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
In Ms Zey’s application, matter no. 40837 of 2006:
(1) Dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
(2) Order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs to the date of service of the notice of discontinuance filed on 21 September 2007.
(3) Dismiss the respondent’s motion seeking indemnity costs.
(4) Order the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion for indemnity costs.
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – leave to appeal – notice of discontinuance filed – no need for leave – liability of applicant for costs to date of discontinuance - COSTS – offer of compromise – comparison with judgment – inclusion of interest to date of offer – no part of costs to be included - COSTS – offer of compromise – change in costs consequences flowing from non-acceptance – application of rules applicable at date of offer – power to otherwise order - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – replacement of District Court Rules by Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – power to dispense with requirements of uniform rules – Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Sch 6, cl5 - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summons filed out of time – power to extend time repealed – effect on existing liability – Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 30 – dispensing power – Civil Procedure Act, ss 14 and 16 LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 14, 16, Sch 6, cl 5
District Court Rules 1973 (NSW), Parts 19A, 39A, rr 12, 25
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 30
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW), s 20
Supreme…
Continue reading Atkinson v Zey
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Atkinson v Zey [2008] NSWCA 30
- Case
- [2008] NSWCA 30
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether leave to appeal was still necessary given the notice of discontinuance, the proper assessment of costs in light of the offer of compromise (specifically, whether interest to the date of the offer should be included and whether costs should be excluded from the offer), and the application of the relevant rules regarding costs consequences of non-acceptance of an offer of compromise, considering the replacement of the District Court Rules by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court also had to consider the effect of a summons filed out of time, the repeal of the power to extend time for such filings, and the application of the dispensing powers under the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW).
The court reasoned that once a notice of discontinuance was filed, the application for leave to appeal was no longer extant, and therefore no leave was required. Regarding costs, the court noted that the offer of compromise was made under the old District Court Rules, and the costs consequences should be determined by those rules. The court found that the offer of compromise, which included interest to the date of the offer, was a valid offer. The court also considered the transitional provisions of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* and the *Interpretation Act 1987* (NSW) in relation to the out-of-time summons, ultimately exercising its dispensing power.
In relation to the applicant's application (matter no. CA 40324/07), the court ordered an extension of time for the service of the holding summons filed on 25 May 2007 to the date of receipt by the respondent's legal representative.
Orders
Orders of the court
In Mr Atkinson's application, matter no. CA 40324/07: (1) Extend time for service of the holding summons filed on 25 May 2007 to the date of receipt by the respondent's legal representative.
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.