GRUNDY -v- CASSAR [No 2] [2012] WASC 103
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 103 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1531/2007 | 1 APRIL 2011 | |
| Coram: | SIMMONDS J | 5/04/12 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Indemnity costs order not made; special costs order made | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARGARET HELEN GRUNDY CHARMAGNE MARCELLE CASSAR REGISTRAR OF TITLES |
Catchwords: | Costs of action Claim for indemnity costs resting on conduct of action Claim for indemnity resting on refusal of Calderbank offer Proper approach to be adopted in each case Costs of action Special costs order Proper approach to be adopted |
Legislation: | Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 215 Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 616 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 24A, O 66 r 1 |
Case References: | Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd v Minister for Resources [No 5] [2008] WASCA 181 EDWF Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v EDWF Holdings 2 Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 275 (S) Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95 Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115; (2009) 41 WAR 1 Green v Wilden Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 83 (S) Grundy v Cassar [2010] WASC 409 Heartlink Ltd v Jones as liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S) SDS Corporation Ltd v Pasdonnay Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 26 (S2) Swansdale Pty Ltd v Whitcrest Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 129 (S) Verdell Pty Ltd v F & G Nominees Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 58 (S2) |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Plaintiff
AND
CHARMAGNE MARCELLE CASSAR
First Defendant
REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Costs of action - Claim for indemnity costs resting on conduct of action - Claim for indemnity resting on refusal of Calderbank offer - Proper approach to be adopted in each case
Costs of action - Special costs order - Proper approach to be adopted
Legislation:
Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 215
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 616
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 24A, O 66 r 1
(Page 2)
Result:
Indemnity costs order not made; special costs order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Dr P R MacMillan
First Defendant : Mr C P Dunnell
Second Defendant : No appearance
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : S C Nigam & Co
First Defendant : Talbot Olivier
Second Defendant : No appearance
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd v Minister for Resources [No 5] [2008] WASCA 181
EDWF Holdings 1 Pty Ltd v EDWF Holdings 2 Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 275 (S)
Flotilla Nominees…
Continue reading Grundy v Cassar [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Grundy v Cassar [No 2] [2012] WASC 103
- Case
- [2012] WASC 103
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Grundy v Cassar [No 2], the parties involved were Grundy and Cassar. The dispute before the court was centred on the costs associated with the legal action, particularly the claim for indemnity costs and the refusal of a Calderbank offer. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate approach to be taken in such matters and to make a decision on whether a special costs order should be granted.
The central legal issues the court had to address were the principles governing indemnity costs and the refusal of a Calderbank offer. The court had to consider the conduct of the parties during the litigation, the merits of the case, and the impact of the Calderbank offer on the costs. The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the conduct of both parties throughout the litigation, the nature of the Calderbank offer, and the overall fairness in the context of the case. The court concluded that while the refusal of a Calderbank offer could be a factor in determining costs, it was not the sole determinant. The court found that a special costs order was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The court's outcome was that an indemnity costs order was not made, but a special costs order was granted. This decision reflects the court's nuanced approach to the allocation of costs in litigation, considering various factors and the broader context of the case. The final orders included the rejection of the claim for indemnity costs and the granting of a special costs order in favour of the plaintiff.
The central legal issues the court had to address were the principles governing indemnity costs and the refusal of a Calderbank offer. The court had to consider the conduct of the parties during the litigation, the merits of the case, and the impact of the Calderbank offer on the costs. The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the conduct of both parties throughout the litigation, the nature of the Calderbank offer, and the overall fairness in the context of the case. The court concluded that while the refusal of a Calderbank offer could be a factor in determining costs, it was not the sole determinant. The court found that a special costs order was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The court's outcome was that an indemnity costs order was not made, but a special costs order was granted. This decision reflects the court's nuanced approach to the allocation of costs in litigation, considering various factors and the broader context of the case. The final orders included the rejection of the claim for indemnity costs and the granting of a special costs order in favour of the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Indemnity costs order not made; special costs order made
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.