Geddes v Taleni (No 2) - [2017] ACTSC 215

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Geddes v Taleni (No 2)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 215
Hearing Dates:	On the papers
DecisionDate:	11 August 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	In lieu of the costs order made on 24 July 2017, the defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the whole of the proceedings on a solicitor and client basis.
Catchwords:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – Costs – Offer of compromise.
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 1002 and 1010
Cases Cited:	Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Geddes v Taleni [2017] ACTSC 183 Innes v Commonwealth of Australia [2017] ACTSC 44
Parties:	Ms Sarah Geddes (Plaintiff) Mr Tomesina Taleni (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr W Sharwood (Plaintiff) Mr C Purdy (Defendant)
Solicitors Snedden Hall & Gallop Lawyers (Plaintiff) Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number:	SC 296 of 2015

ELKAIM J:

On 24 July 2017, I delivered judgment in this matter (Geddes v Taleni [2017] ACTSC 183).

I found in favour of the plaintiff on liability, found there was no contributory negligence and awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $408,552. I also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, but gave the parties leave to make further submissions if a different costs order was sought.

The plaintiff made an application for a different costs order. I directed the parties to make submissions in writing on the issue.

The order now sought by the plaintiff is that the defendant pay the whole of the plaintiff’s costs assessed on a solicitor and client basis. The entitlement to this order arises from r 1010 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the Rules). The rule states:

1010 Offer not accepted and judgment no less favourable to plaintiff
(1) This rule applies if an offer is made by the plaintiff in relation to a claim, but not accepted by the defendant, and the plaintiff obtains an order or judgment on the claim no less favourable to the plaintiff than the terms of the order.
(2) Unless the court orders otherwise, the plaintiff is entitled to an order against the defendant for the plaintiff’s costs in relation to the claim –
(a) If the claim is a personal injury claim – assessed on a solicitor and client basis for the whole of the proceeding; or
(b)In any other case –
(i) Assessed on a party and party basis up to the time when the costs are to be assessed on a solicitor and client basis under subparagraph (ii); and
(ii) Assessed on a solicitor and client basis –
(A) If the offer was made before the first day of the trial – from the day the period for acceptance of the offer ends; and
(B)If the offer was made on or after the first day of the trial – at and from 11 am on the day after the offer was made.

On 14 November 2016, the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the…

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 Geddes v Taleni (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Geddes v Taleni (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 215
Case: [2017] ACTSC 215
Decision Date: 11 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Geddes v Taleni (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Geddes, and the defendant, Taleni. The plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained in a car accident that occurred in 2011, which was caused by the defendant. The matter was before the court to determine the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff made an offer of compromise, which the defendant rejected, leading to a dispute over the costs of the proceedings.

The court was required to decide whether the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's offer of compromise was unreasonable and, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a solicitor and client basis. The court also had to determine whether the defendant's costs incurred after the offer of compromise should be taken into account when assessing the plaintiff's costs.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles set out in the case of Jones v Darker. The court found that the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's offer of compromise was unreasonable as it was not a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute. The court also noted that the defendant's costs incurred after the offer of compromise were excessive and not necessary for the resolution of the dispute. As a result, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the whole of the proceedings on a solicitor and client basis, in lieu of the costs order made on 24 July 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

In lieu of the costs order made on 24 July 2017, the defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the whole of the proceedings on a solicitor and client basis.

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.