Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Carter v Mehmet (No 3) [2022] NSWCA 64 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 21 April 2022 Decision date: 21 April 2022 Before: Meagher JA, Gleeson JA, Payne JA Decision: (1) Dismiss paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of motion dated 9 December 2021;
(2) No order as to costs of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of motion.
Catchwords: COSTS — party/party — exceptions to general rule that costs follow the event — offer of compromise — where offer made to compromise claim and cross-claim — where no separate offer made in relation to appeal proceedings — circumstances in which it is appropriate to “otherwise order”
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 20.26, 36.16, 42.14, 42.15, 42.15A, 51.47, 51.48, 51.49
Cases Cited: Bartlett v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) (2016) 92 NSWLR 670; [2016] NSWCA 142
Carter v Mehmet [2021] NSWCA 286
Carter v Mehmet (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 333
Hutley v Cosco (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 335
Lewis Securities Ltd (in liq) v Carter (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 159
Mehmet v Carter [2017] NSWSC 1067
Mehmet v Carter [2018] NSWCA 305
Mendonca v Tonna (No 3) [2020] NSWCA 332
Regency Media Pty Ltd v AAV Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 368
Valmont Interiors Pty Ltd v Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] NSWCA 160
Category: Consequential orders Parties: Murray John Carter (First Appellant)
The Wheel Resort Pty Ltd (Second Appellant)
Cathscompany Pty Ltd (Third Appellant)
Ian Mehmet t/as ATF Ian G Mehmet Testamentary Trust (First Respondent)
Cameron Mehmet t/as ATF Cameron Mehmet Testamentary Trust (Second Respondent)
Errol Mehmet t/as ATF Errol J Mehmet Testamentary Trust (Third Respondent)
Cheers Aviation Pty Ltd t/as ATF KMCG Investment Trust (Fourth Respondent)
Matthew Timothy Cheers (Fifth Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
T Alexis SC, M Southwick (Appellants)
DA Smallbone (Respondents)
Australian Law Group Heydons (Appellants)
Beswick Lynch Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2020/140939 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 17 April 2020
- Before:
- Ward CJ in Eq
- File Number(s):
- 2015/360420
Judgment
-
THE COURT: On 25 November 2021, this Court allowed an appeal by Mr Murray Carter, The Wheel Resort Pty Ltd and Cathscompany Pty Ltd (the appellants) against Messrs Ian, Cameron and Errol Mehmet, Cheers Aviation Pty Ltd and Mr Matthew Cheers (the respondents) and, in lieu of the orders made by the primary judge, gave judgment for the appellants against the respondents in the sum of $480,832.20 plus interest: Carter v Mehmet [2021] NSWCA 286. The Court also ordered that the respondents pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal and of the proceeding below. In addressing the present topic, familiarity with those principal…
Continue reading Carter v Mehmet (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Carter v Mehmet (No 3) [2022] NSWCA 64
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 64
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent was entitled to an order for costs of the appeal proceedings, despite the fact that the offer of compromise made in the primary proceedings did not specifically address the appeal. The court was required to consider the circumstances in which it might depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, particularly in relation to offers of compromise that encompass both primary and appellate proceedings.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the offer of compromise, which had been made in the primary proceedings, was intended to resolve all aspects of the litigation between the parties, including any potential appeals. The court noted that the offer was broad enough to encompass the appeal proceedings, and that the respondent had not made a separate offer specifically for the appeal. Consequently, the court determined that it was not appropriate to make an "otherwise order" in favour of the respondent regarding the costs of the appeal.
The Court of Appeal ordered that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of motion dated 9 December 2021 be dismissed, and that there be no order as to the costs of those paragraphs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Dismiss paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of motion dated 9 December 2021;
(2) No order as to costs of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of motion.
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.