Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.3) - [2024] NSWSC 53

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.3) [2024] NSWSC 53
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 16 February 2024
Decision date: 16 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
1. Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff on 7 November 2023 is dismissed.
2. Order the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of the Motion.

Catchwords:
COSTS – Offer of Compromise under UCPR, r 20.26 – whether Offers of Compromise complied with r 20.26 – Where an offer does not describe with precision what it is seeking with respect to costs.

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 WLR 586
Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) [2023] NSWSC 1076
Whitney v Dream Developments Pty Ltd (2013) 84 NSWLR 311; [2013] NSWCA 188

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: William Farmer (P)
Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (D1)
Wilson Security Pty Ltd (D2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Cranitch SC / Mr Woods (P)
Mr D Priestley SC (D1)
Mr W Reynolds (D2)
Solicitors:
SommervilleLaundryLomax (P)
Gilchrist Connell (D1)
JLN Corporate Services Pty Ltd (D2)

File Number(s): 2018/00175460
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

JUDGMENT

On 28 September 2023, I delivered judgment on the claim brought by the plaintiff against the two defendants. I made the following orders:

“1.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,086,100.
2.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $1,086,100.
3.   Defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.”

My reasons for those orders are to be found in Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.2) [2023] NSWSC 1076.
I reserved liberty to apply to any party who sought a different costs order.

Notice of Motion

On 7 November 2023, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion in which he sought the following orders:

“1. That the first defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis until 14 April 2022, and thereafter on the indemnity basis.
2. That the second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis until 27 September 2022, and thereafter on the indemnity basis.”

This Court made procedural directions and indicated to the parties that it would determine this Motion on the papers.
This judgment deals with the Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff on 7 November 2023. For the reasons which follow, the Motion ought to be dismissed with costs.

Relevant Factual Background

The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injury arising out of a fall down a flight of stairs at a staff accommodation block at a Regional Processing Centre at Nauru. The Centre was managed for the Commonwealth of Australia by the first defendant, Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (“Broadspectrum”).
At the time of his fall, the plaintiff was employed by the second defendant, Wilson Security Pty Ltd (“Wilson Security”), as a Safety and Security Consultant.
When proceedings were first commenced by the plaintiff on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (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: [2024] NSWSC 53
Decision Date: 16 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.3) was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute was between the plaintiff, who was a former employee, and the defendant, the employer, concerning the proper application of the costs provisions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The plaintiff sought to enforce an offer of compromise under rule 20.26 of the UCPR, arguing that the defendant had failed to comply with the requirements for such offers.

The central legal issue that the court had to resolve was whether the defendant's offer of compromise complied with the procedural requirements of rule 20.26. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the offer sufficiently described what it sought in terms of costs and if it met the necessary criteria for enforcement under the rule. The plaintiff argued that the offer was vague and did not meet the precision required by the rule, while the defendant contended that the offer was adequate.

The court found that the offer of compromise made by the defendant did not comply with the requirements of rule 20.26. It was held that the offer did not describe with sufficient precision what it was seeking with respect to costs. The court emphasised that for an offer of compromise to be enforceable, it must clearly specify the terms of the settlement, including the costs component. Since the defendant's offer lacked this precision, the plaintiff's application for costs under the offer of compromise was dismissed.

Orders