Hendrie v Rusli

Case [2000] WASCA 420

HENDRIE -v- RUSLI [2000] WASCA 420



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2000] WASCA 420
THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:FUL:81/199913 DECEMBER 2000
Coram:MURRAY J21/12/00
6Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Special costs order not made
PDF Version
Parties:MARIE HENDRIE
ANAWATI RUSLI

Catchwords:
Costs
Variation of award of damages
Ultimate award did not exceed offer to settle made before trial or offer made before appeal heard
Whether special order as to costs should be made

Legislation:
Rules of Supreme Court O 24A

Case References:
Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93
Dobb v Hacket (1993) 10 WAR 532
Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249
Sloane v McDonald & Sutherland, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980012; 22 January 1998
Ettinghausen v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (1995) 38 NSWLR 404

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : HENDRIE -v- RUSLI [2000] WASCA 420 CORAM : MURRAY J HEARD : 13 DECEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 21 DECEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : FUL 81 of 1999 BETWEEN : MARIE HENDRIE
    Appellant (Plaintiff)

    AND

    ANAWATI RUSLI
    Respondent (Defendant)



Catchwords:

Costs - Variation of award of damages - Ultimate award did not exceed offer to settle made before trial or offer made before appeal heard - Whether special order as to costs should be made




Legislation:

Rules of Supreme Court O 24A




Result:

Special costs order not made




(Page 2)

Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant (Plaintiff) : Mr K J Bradford
    Respondent (Defendant) : Mr J R Brooksby


Solicitors:

    Appellant (Plaintiff) : Bradford & Co
    Respondent (Defendant) : Greenland Brooksby


Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93
Dobb v Hacket (1993) 10 WAR 532
Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249
Sloane v McDonald & Sutherland, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980012; 22 January 1998

Case(s) also cited:



Ettinghausen v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (1995) 38 NSWLR 404

(Page 3)

1 MURRAY J: The appellant sued for damages in negligence, liability was admitted by the respondent, and the assessment of damages was tried in the District Court. On 28 May 1999 the trial Judge gave judgment for the appellant in the sum of $133,586.10.

2 As I understand the position, prior to trial, the parties had agreed the special damages in the sum of $65,434.10, that, having regard to the appellant's age and her remunerative activities, an award of $2,000 should be made for past and future economic loss, and that an award of $20,365 should be made for future medical expenses. The total of the amounts which were not in contention between the parties was therefore the sum of $87,799.10. The sum of $45,787, which was the balance of the award made by the trial Judge comprised $42,400 for general damages of a non-pecuniary kind, and an amount of $3,387 awarded for what were described as future professional services. The trial Judge rejected the appellant's claim…

Continue reading Hendrie v Rusli

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 420
Case
[2000] WASCA 420
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hendrie v Rusli, the respondent sought a variation of the award of damages made by the primary judge. The nature of the dispute involved the assessment of costs in relation to a settlement offer made before the trial and another offer made before the appeal was heard. The court was tasked with determining whether a special order as to costs should be made in light of the respondent's unsuccessful application to vary the damages. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues the court needed to decide centred around the principles governing the award of costs in relation to settlement offers made at different stages of litigation. The court considered whether the ultimate award of damages made by the primary judge was within the range of the settlement offers and whether this warranted a special order for costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, the court had to examine the appropriateness of such an order in light of the unsuccessful application to vary the damages.

The court held that the ultimate award of damages did not exceed the offer to settle made before the trial or the offer made before the appeal was heard. Despite this, the court found that a special order as to costs should not be made. The court reasoned that while the primary judge's award was within the range of the settlement offers, the respondent's application to vary the damages was unsuccessful. The court concluded that the unsuccessful application did not warrant a special order for costs, as the respondent had not achieved any success that would justify such an order. The court's decision was grounded in the principles that a party should not be penalised for pursuing a legitimate legal strategy and that the costs consequences should reflect the overall outcome of the proceedings.

In summary, the Federal Court of Australia determined that despite the primary judge's award being within the range of the settlement offers, a special order for costs should not be made due to the respondent's unsuccessful application to vary the damages. The court's decision underscores the importance of the overall outcome of the proceedings in determining the appropriate costs order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Special costs order not 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.