Bastas v Hodes (No 3)

Bastas v Hodes (No 3) involved the plaintiff suing the defendant over a dispute related to financial transactions. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr Bastas, contested the defendant's acceptance of a payment offer and sought to argue that the judgment in his favour was more favourable than the defendant's offer. The central legal issue was whether exceptional circumstances existed to avoid the defendant's entitlement to indemnity costs under rule 42.15A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether interest on costs, pursuant to section 101(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, was limited to payments ordered by the court or also applied to payments made by a party to their solicitors.

The court examined the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the indemnity costs principle. The court noted that the plaintiff's judgment was not significantly more favourable than the defendant's offer, and thus, the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs. Regarding the interest on costs, the court held that section 101(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 applied to all costs payments made by a party to their solicitors, not just those ordered by the court. Consequently, the defendant was entitled to interest on all costs payments made to their solicitors.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity costs and that the defendant was entitled to interest on all costs payments made to their solicitors. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis and that interest on those costs accrue from the date of the application until payment in full.