Burgoyne Real Estate Pty Ltd v Dutt

Burgoyne Real Estate Pty Ltd brought an action against Dutt for damages for personal injury. Dutt offered $25,000 plus costs and disbursements to settle the proceeding, which was accepted by Burgoyne. A dispute arose concerning the costs payable, leading to an application for the judge to determine the costs. The judge was asked to adjudicate on the costs rather than deciding the meaning of the offer that had been accepted. The issue before the court was whether the judge was correct in his approach and whether certain new arguments raised by Dutt on the application for leave to appeal were relevant considerations.

The court found that the judge was correct in his approach, as his role was to adjudicate on the costs and not to decide the meaning of the offer that had been accepted. The court also determined that if rule 63A.24 of the County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2008 engaged, the meaning of Dutt's offer, their election for a trial by jury, the probable reduction of the offer due to Burgoyne's contributory negligence, and the late loss by Burgoyne of the right to recover damages for non-economic loss were irrelevant considerations. The court exercised its discretion under section 14C of the Supreme Court Act 1986 and refused Dutt leave to appeal.

The court's decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between the role of the judge in adjudicating on costs and the meaning of an accepted offer. The court also emphasised that certain factors, such as the meaning of the offer and the election for a trial by jury, are irrelevant when determining costs under rule 63A.24 of the County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2008. The court's refusal to grant leave to appeal demonstrates the strict application of the discretion under section 14C of the Supreme Court Act 1986.