Legal Research
Cases
Doric v Orec (No 2)

Doric v Orec (No 2)

Case [2025] NSWSC 343 9 April 2025

Costs

Calderbank Offer

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Doric v Orec (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 343
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 9 April 2025
Decision date: 09 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity – Probate and Family Provision List – Probate
Before: Peden J
Decision:
At [33]

Catchwords:
COSTS — Party/Party — Court’s discretion — Whether indemnity costs should be ordered — Calderbank offer — Where terms of proposed settlement unclear — Where timeframe for acceptance was seven days — Where no genuine element of compromise
COSTS — Party/Party — General rule that costs follow the event — Gross sum costs order — Standard of evidence required — Where no evidence of legal work completed or rates charged

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98
Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 59
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 20.26, 42.1.

Cases Cited:
Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 39
Aneve Pty Ltd v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2005] NSWCA 441
Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 12
Brymount Pty Ltd v Cummins (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 69
C&V Engineering Services Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 240
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Colquhoun v District Court of New South Wales (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 54
Della Franca v Lorenzato [2022] NSWCA 53
Doric v Orec [2025] NSWSC 245
E Group Security Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1296
Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd v Salmon [2007] NSWCA 322 at [117]
Harrison v Schipp [2002] NSWCA 213
Krolczyk v Winner [2022] NSWCA 196
Michael Hill Jeweller (Australia) Pty Ltd v Gispac Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 274
Pirrottina v Pirrottina [2025] NSWCA 55
Stoddard (NSW) Pty Ltd v Kellyville Building Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1480

Category: Costs
Parties: Judy Nada Doric (Plaintiff)
Darko Orec (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A G Rogers (Plaintiff)
R Bianchi (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Alexander Richards Lawyers (Plaintiff)
O’Neill Solicitors (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/00093724
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 24 March 2025, I delivered judgment in the substantive proceedings: Doric v Orec [2025] NSWSC 245 (Judgment). This judgment concerns the costs and orders of those proceedings, and ought to be read together with the Judgment.
In the Judgment at [161], I directed the parties to confer and provide various agreed orders to give effect to my reasons or, if they were unable to agree, to provide the proposed orders of each party and submissions in support of those orders, which they did.
Darryl sought indemnity costs of the proceedings or, in the alternative, his costs on an ordinary basis until he made a Calderbank offer to Judy, and on an indemnity basis thereafter. In any event, Darryl submitted that Judy ought to bear the entirety of her own costs in the proceedings, notwithstanding that he failed in his cross-claim for additional provision pursuant to s 59 Succession Act 2006 (NSW): at…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Doric v Orec (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Doric v Orec (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 343
Case: [2025] NSWSC 343
Decision Date: 09 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Doric v Orec, the Court was tasked with determining several issues regarding costs between the parties, particularly focusing on the appropriateness of an indemnity costs order. The case involved a dispute over the terms of a proposed settlement and the appropriate allocation of costs under the party/party costs regime. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether an indemnity costs order should be granted given the nature of the Calderbank offer and the subsequent timeframe provided for its acceptance. Additionally, the Court had to consider the standard of evidence required for a gross sum costs order in the absence of specific evidence regarding the legal work completed or the rates charged.

The Court deliberated on the terms of the Calderbank offer, noting that the proposal lacked clarity and did not exhibit a genuine element of compromise. The seven-day timeframe for acceptance further complicated the matter, as it did not afford the opposing party sufficient opportunity to consider the offer. The Court found that the offer was not sufficiently clear or reasonable, thus not warranting an indemnity costs order. Regarding the general principle that costs follow the event, the Court examined the evidence presented for the gross sum costs order. The absence of detailed evidence on the legal work completed or the rates charged made it challenging to substantiate the claimed costs. Consequently, the Court was unable to determine the reasonableness of the claimed costs, leading to a conclusion that the party/party costs order should not be based on the gross sum claimed.

The Court ultimately ruled that the claimant was not entitled to an indemnity costs order due to the inadequate nature of the Calderbank offer. Furthermore, the claimant was not entitled to a gross sum costs order without providing sufficient evidence to substantiate the claimed costs. The Court's decision underscored the importance of clarity and genuine compromise in settlement offers, as well as the necessity of detailed evidence to support claims for costs in legal proceedings.

Orders