Baker v Bunnings Group Limited (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Baker v Bunnings Group Limited (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 449
Hearing dates: 31 July 2020
Date of orders: 14 August 2020
Decision date: 14 August 2020
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:

(1) The Amended Notice of Motion filed in court on 31 July 2020 is dismissed.

(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Amended Notice of Motion filed on 31 July 2020 as agreed or assessed.

(3) The costs order made in favour of the defendant on 18 June 2020 is confirmed.

Catchwords:

Costs – application for indemnity costs – offers of compromise – whether the court should award indemnity costs or “otherwise” order – Calderbank offers

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

AB v Keanes (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 765

Baker v Bunnings Group Ltd [2020] NSWDC 310

Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333

Outerbridge trading as Century 21 Plateau Lifestyle Real Estate v Hall (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 8

Category:Costs
Parties: Shirley‑Ann Baker (Plaintiff)
Bunnings Group Limited (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
S J Roulstone (Plaintiff)
G Jensen (Defendant)

Solicitors:
LHD Lawyers (Plaintiff)
McCabe Curwood (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/00307583

Judgment

  1. These reasons for decision deal with an application by the defendant, Bunnings Group Ltd, for an order for indemnity costs against the plaintiff. The application follows the handing down of the court’s judgment after the completion of the final hearing in the proceedings: Baker v Bunnings Group Ltd [2020] NSWDC 310. The plaintiff was held to be unsuccessful in her claim in negligence against the defendant. These reasons assume a familiarity with the judgment handed down on 18 June 2020 (“the Judgment”).

  2. In its Amended Notice of Motion filed in court with leave on 31 July 2020, the defendant seeks the following orders which are stated to be sought following the setting aside or variation of the order for costs made by the court in the defendant’s favour on the ordinary basis on 18 June 2020:

“1.  The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the defendant of the proceedings up to and including 13 June 2020 2019 on an ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.

2.  The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the defendant of the proceedings from 14 June 2020 2019, including the costs of and associated with this Motion, on an indemnity basis as agreed or assessed.”

  1. In support of the orders sought in the Amended Notice of Motion, the defendant read two affidavits of Michael James Cooper dated 30 June 2020 and 1 July 2020, respectively. Annexed to the earlier affidavit is a letter dated 13 June 2019 from the solicitors for the defendant to the solicitors for the plaintiff which was emailed to them on that date serving an Offer of Compromise dated 13 June 2019. The Offer of Compromise dated 13 June 2019 is stated to be made in accordance with Part 20.26 of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker v Bunnings Group Limited (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] NSWDC 449
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Baker v Bunnings Group Limited (No 2), the plaintiff, Mr. Baker, sought indemnity costs against the defendant, Bunnings Group Limited, for their conduct during the litigation process. The dispute originated from an incident where Mr. Baker sustained an injury in a Bunnings store. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the defendant's conduct warranted an order for indemnity costs and whether the court should award indemnity costs or make an "otherwise" order under section 56(2) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1995. The court also needed to consider the relevance of the defendant's Calderbank offers in determining the appropriate costs order.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs, ruling that the defendant's conduct did not justify such an award. The court found that the defendant had made a genuine attempt to resolve the matter through negotiation, which was reflected in their Calderbank offers. Although the plaintiff did not accept these offers, the court concluded that the defendant's conduct was reasonable and did not warrant indemnity costs. Instead, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the amended notice of motion as agreed or assessed, and confirmed the costs order made in favour of the defendant on 18 June 2020.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Amended Notice of Motion filed in court on 31 July 2020 is dismissed.

(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Amended Notice of Motion filed on 31 July 2020 as agreed or assessed.

(3) The costs order made in favour of the defendant on 18 June 2020 is confirmed.

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.