Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd v David Page - [2017] NSWSC 660

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd v David Page [2017] NSWSC 660
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 31 May 2017
Decision date: 31 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
(1) Order 4 made on 16 November 2016 is varied as follows: The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs up to and including 2 June 2016 on the ordinary basis, and from 3 June 2016 on an indemnity basis.
(2) Costs of this motion on an ordinary basis in favour of the defendant.
Catchwords: COSTS – indemnity costs – offer of compromise rejected – genuine offer of compromise
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Amaca Pty Ltd v Mathwin [2005] NSWCA 364
Fabre v Lui (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 312
GIO General Ltd v ABB Installation and Service Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 118
Hart Security Australia Pty Ltd v Boucousis (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1815
Houatchanthara v Bednarczyk [1996] NSWCA 253
Leach v The Nominal Defendant (QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd) (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 391
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341
Mega-top Cargo Pty Ltd v Money tech Services Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 3
Morgan v Johnson (1998) 44 NSWLR 578
New South Wales Insurance Ministerial Corporation v Reeve (1993) 42 NSWLR 100
Page v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1608
Prospect Resources Ltd v Molyneaux [2015] NSWCA 171
Regency Media Pty Ltd v AAV Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 368
Shepis v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] NSWCA 354
SWM Financial Services Pty Ltd v Lloyd (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 202
Taheri v Vitek (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 344
The Uniting Church v Takacs (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 172
Townsend v Townsend (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 145
Category: Costs
Parties: Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd (applicant / defendant)
David Page (respondent / plaintiff)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Docker (applicant)
Mr Moorhouse (respondent)
Solicitors:
Lander & Rogers Lawyers (applicant)
Haywoods Solicitors (respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/333261
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This costs judgment arises from a dispute between the applicant, Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd and the respondent, Dr David Page. The application was brought by Notice of Motion following the substantive proceedings which were determined in the applicant’s favour. For consistency and clarity, I will refer to the parties as they were in the substantive matter – that being, the applicant as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff.
By an amended Statement of Claim filed in this Court on 8 July 2016, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was in breach of contract and claimed damages in excess of 2.5 million dollars flowing from the breach. The defendant disputed the claim and denied the existence of a contract in the nature claimed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a specialist anaesthetist who was accredited to work, and did work, on a regular basis at the Norwest Private Hospital, which is owned and operated by the defendant.
The matter came…

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 Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd v David Page 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: [2017] NSWSC 660
Decision Date: 31 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd v David Page involved a dispute between a medical services provider and an individual, with the matter being heard by the Federal Circuit Court. The primary contention was over the costs associated with indemnity, specifically whether the defendant, David Page, should be liable for the plaintiff's costs after rejecting a genuine offer of compromise made by the plaintiff, Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd.

The court needed to determine whether the offer of compromise was genuine and whether its rejection was reasonable. This involved an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the offer, including the timing, the terms proposed, and the justification for the rejection. The court was tasked with applying the relevant statutory provisions and case law to ascertain whether the defendant's refusal to accept the offer was justified under the circumstances.

The court found that the offer of compromise was indeed genuine and that the rejection was not reasonable. It held that the defendant's reasons for rejecting the offer did not meet the criteria established in case law for a reasonable refusal. Consequently, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's indemnity costs, which included the costs associated with the offer of compromise. This decision underscored the importance of the genuineness of offers of compromise and the consequences of their unreasonable rejection.

The final orders of the court mandated that David Page pay Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd's indemnity costs, reflecting the court's determination that the offer of compromise was valid and that its rejection was unreasonable. This outcome emphasised the legal principle that parties should be encouraged to settle disputes amicably, and that rejecting a genuine offer of compromise without good cause can lead to adverse financial consequences.

Orders