Byers v Frith (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Byers v Frith (No 3) [2017] NSWDC 451
Hearing dates: 8 September 2017
Date of orders: 08 September 2017
Decision date: 08 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:

(1) Note the application by the second and third defendants for further orders after entry of judgment but within the 14 days allowed under r 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.
(2)   Make orders in accordance with paras 2 and 6 of the notice of motion dated 13 July 2017.
(3)   Order the costs of the notice of motion to be part of the costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: COSTS — Party/Party — Exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event — Offers of compromise/Calderbank offers
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 20, r 20.26, r 20.30, r 36.16, r 42.6, r 42.15A
Cases Cited: Byers v Frith (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 165
Macplan Logistics Systems Pty Ltd v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 324
Category:Costs
Parties: Malcolm Byers - plaintiff
Jan Frith - first defendant
Kelvin Hutchinson - second defendant
Vision In Action Pty Ltd - third defendant
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Gaffney – second and third defendants

  Solicitors:
Hallewell Law – second and third defendants
File Number(s): 2014/24350
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

  1. On 29 June 2017 I gave judgment in favour of the defendants and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs. [1] Within the two-week period provided by r 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (“UCPR”), the second and third defendants made an application for additional or varied orders to include provision for some of the costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis. The first defendant makes no further application in respect of costs and does not appear. The plaintiff also did not appear despite having an interest in the outcome of the motion. I accepted the second and third defendants’ election to proceed in the absence of the plaintiff.

    1. Byers v Frith (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 165.

  2. So far as the application by the second defendant for indemnity costs is concerned, a number of offers are in evidence. The primary offer relied upon by the second defendant is an offer dated 28 August 2014, which was in the following relevant terms:

"Without prejudice except as to costs

…

My client offers to settle the entire claim made by your client against my client, the second defendant, in these proceedings on the following terms:

1. That the second defendant pay the plaintiff $10,000.

2.  That orders be made in proceedings no 2014/24350 in the following terms:

1. Judgment for the Second Defendant against the Plaintiff.

2. No order as to costs.

3. The offer is made in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and in particular r 20.26

4. In the alternative, my client reserves his right to rely on this offer on the question of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Byers v Frith (No 3) 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
[2017] NSWDC 451
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Byers v Frith (No 3) involved a dispute between the plaintiff and multiple defendants over certain legal proceedings. The nature of the dispute centred around the application of costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, specifically focusing on the exceptions to the general rule that costs follow the event, with an emphasis on offers of compromise, particularly Calderbank offers. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the second and third defendants were entitled to costs in relation to their application for further orders after the entry of judgment, and whether these costs should be included within the 14 days allowed under rule 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate allocation of costs related to the notice of motion filed by the second and third defendants.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation and application of the relevant rules and principles regarding costs and Calderbank offers. The court found that the second and third defendants were entitled to the orders they sought, which were in accordance with the notice of motion dated 13 July 2017. Furthermore, the court ruled that the costs of the notice of motion should be part of the overall costs of the proceedings. Consequently, the court made orders in line with the submissions made by the second and third defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Note the application by the second and third defendants for further orders after entry of judgment but within the 14 days allowed under r 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

(2) Make orders in accordance with paras 2 and 6 of the notice of motion dated 13 July 2017.

(3) Order the costs of the notice of motion to be part of the costs of the proceedings.

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.