Edmonds v Barrington Winstanley Group Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Edmonds v Barrington Winstanley Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 197
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 22 August 2023
Decision date: 22 August 2023
Before: Meagher JA, Leeming JA, Stern JA
Decision:

The appellants should pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, including on the issue of costs, to be assessed on the ordinary basis if not agreed

Catchwords:

COSTS - Party/Party - Bases of quantification - offer of compromise/Calderbank offer - where global offer made to resolve appeal and two related bankruptcy proceedings - reasonableness of conduct - limited information before the Court concerning other proceedings - conduct of appellants not so unreasonable as to justify an order for indemnity costs

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 20.26

Cases Cited:

E Group Security Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1296

Krolczyk v Winner t/as J Winner Building Services [2022] NSWCA 196

Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341

Miwa Pty Ltd v Siantan Properties Pte Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 344

Tati v Stonewall Hotel Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 124

Category:Costs
Parties: Sandra Edmonds (First Appellant)
David Edmonds (Second Appellant)
Barrington Winstanley Group Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr L Smits (Sol) (Appellants)
Mr M R Pesman SC and Mr F Salama (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Murray Laws Pty Ltd (Appellants)
Ark Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/305853
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:

[2022] NSWSC 531

Date of Decision:
04 May 2022
Before:
Darke J
File Number(s):
2021/112414

JUDGMENT

  1. THE COURT: On 24 July 2023, the Court delivered judgment and made orders refusing the appellants’ notice of motion seeking to rely upon further evidence and dismissing the appeal. The Court also ordered that the respondent should file short submissions on costs within seven days and the appellant file short submissions in reply within fourteen days of the Court’s orders.

  2. The respondent filed submissions on costs on 28 July 2023. The respondent seeks an order that the appellants pay its costs on an ordinary basis until 21 March 2023 and on an indemnity basis thereafter. The respondent relies, in this regard, upon a global offer which was made on 6 March 2023 to resolve the appeal and two related bankruptcy proceedings (“the 6 March 2023 Offer”). The respondent accepts that the 6 March 2023 Offer would not necessarily, of itself, justify an order for indemnity costs. It submits, however, that the conclusion that an order for indemnity costs is appropriate is reinforced by the appellants’ conduct of the appeal. In this regard the respondent submits that costs were wasted by the appellants in addressing a substantial number of appeal grounds that were ultimately abandoned at the hearing and in addressing an application for fresh evidence which, the respondent submits, had no prospect of success and would not have altered the outcome of the appeal even…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Edmonds v Barrington Winstanley Group Pty Ltd (No 2) 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
[2023] NSWCA 197
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an application for indemnity costs by the respondent, Barrington Winstanley Group Pty Ltd, against the appellants, Edmonds and others. The dispute arose from a global offer of compromise made by the respondent to resolve not only the appeal but also two related bankruptcy proceedings. The appellants sought to resist the respondent's claim for indemnity costs, arguing that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was whether the appellants' conduct in refusing the respondent's global offer of compromise was so unreasonable as to warrant an order for indemnity costs. This required the Court to assess the reasonableness of the appellants' decision in light of the information available to them at the time the offer was made, and to consider the respondent's conduct in making the offer.

The Court found that while the offer was global and encompassed multiple proceedings, there was insufficient information before it regarding the other bankruptcy proceedings to definitively conclude that the appellants' refusal was unreasonable. The Court noted that the respondent had not provided comprehensive details of the other proceedings to justify an order for indemnity costs. Consequently, the Court determined that the appellants' conduct, while perhaps not ideal, did not reach the threshold of unreasonableness required to depart from the ordinary basis of costs assessment.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including the costs of the hearing on the issue of costs, to be assessed on the ordinary basis unless otherwise agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appellants should pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, including on the issue of costs, to be assessed on the ordinary basis if not agreed

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.