GLOBALTECH PTY LTD -v- PAREEK [2006] WASC 30 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASC 30 (S) | |
| Case No: | CIV:2686/2000 | 27 OCTOBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | JOHNSON J | 23/02/06 | |
| 18/05/06 | |||
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for indemnity costs order refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GLOBALTECH PTY LTD (ACN 086 012 393) MAHAVEER PAREEK KHALED MUFID YOUSEF HEJLEH JOHAN ANWAR MICHAEL ALLAN KLASS |
Catchwords: | Indemnity costs Calderbank offer to compromise Requirement of offer to compromise When unreasonable to refuse offer |
Legislation: | Supreme Court Rules |
Case References: | Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 192 Brymount Pty Ltd t/a Watson Toyota v Cummins [2005] NSWCA 69 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anor v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 46 FCR 225 Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290 Dobb v Hacket (1993) 10 WAR 532 Duvall v Godfrey Virtue & Co (a firm) [2001] WASCA 163 Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority & Anor [2003] WASC 122 Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd & Ors (1988) 81 ALR 397 Fyna Foods Australia Pty Ltd v Cobannah Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] FCA 1212 Grbavac v Hart [1997] 1 VR 154 Hobartville Stud Pty Ltd v Union Insurance Co Ltd (1991) 25 NSWLR 358 Jones & Anor v Millward & Anor [2005] QCA 76 Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 McKerlie v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2000] NSWSC 1159 Messiter v Hutchinson (1987) 10 NSWLR 525 MGICA (1992) Ltd v Kenny & Good Pty Ltd & Anor (No 4) (1996) 140 ALR 707 Quirk v Bawden (1992) 112 ACTR 1 Townsend & Ors v Collova & Ors (S) [2005] WASC 4 Vasram v AMP Life Ltd [2002] FCA 1286 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
DECISION : 18 MAY 2006 FILE NO/S : CIV 2686 of 2000 BETWEEN : GLOBALTECH PTY LTD (ACN 086 012 393)
- Plaintiff
AND
MAHAVEER PAREEK
Defendant
(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)
MAHAVEER PAREEK
Plaintiff
AND
GLOBALTECH PTY LTD (ACN 086 012 393)
First Defendant
KHALED MUFID YOUSEF HEJLEH
Second Defendant
JOHAN ANWAR
Third Defendant
MICHAEL ALLAN KLASS
Fourth Defendant
(BY COUNTERCLAIM)
Catchwords:
Indemnity costs Calderbank offer to compromise Requirement of offer to compromise When unreasonable to refuse offer
Legislation:
Supreme Court Rules
Result:
Application for indemnity costs order refused
Category: B
Representation:
Original Action
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr T J Palmer
Defendant : Ms S J Monck
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Clayton Utz
Defendant : Dwyer Durack
(Page 3)
Counterclaim
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Ms S J Monck
First Defendant : Mr T J Palmer
Second Defendant : Mr T J Palmer
Third Defendant…
Continue reading Globaltech Pty Ltd v Pareek
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Globaltech Pty Ltd v Pareek [2006] WASC 30 (S)
- Case
- [2006] WASC 30 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved Globaltech Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Pareek, the defendant. The dispute centred around the costs of a legal proceeding and whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs following a failed Calderbank offer. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought indemnity costs from the defendant after a failed attempt to settle the case through a Calderbank offer, which is a conditional offer to settle a claim made without admission of liability. The defendant had refused the offer, which the plaintiff argued was unreasonable, entitling them to indemnity costs.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's refusal of the Calderbank offer was unreasonable, thereby justifying an order for indemnity costs. The court needed to determine the circumstances under which a party may be held to have unreasonably refused an offer to compromise. The plaintiff argued that the offer was reasonable and that the refusal was unjustifiable, warranting indemnity costs. The defendant contended that the offer was unreasonable, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to such costs.
The court examined the nature of the Calderbank offer and the surrounding circumstances to decide if the refusal was unreasonable. It found that the offer was not unreasonable and that the defendant had legitimate reasons for rejecting it. The court held that there was no basis to conclude that it was unreasonable to refuse the offer. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs was refused. The court's decision was based on the detailed analysis of the offer's terms and the context in which it was made.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's refusal of the Calderbank offer was unreasonable, thereby justifying an order for indemnity costs. The court needed to determine the circumstances under which a party may be held to have unreasonably refused an offer to compromise. The plaintiff argued that the offer was reasonable and that the refusal was unjustifiable, warranting indemnity costs. The defendant contended that the offer was unreasonable, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to such costs.
The court examined the nature of the Calderbank offer and the surrounding circumstances to decide if the refusal was unreasonable. It found that the offer was not unreasonable and that the defendant had legitimate reasons for rejecting it. The court held that there was no basis to conclude that it was unreasonable to refuse the offer. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs was refused. The court's decision was based on the detailed analysis of the offer's terms and the context in which it was made.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for indemnity costs order refused
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.