Herbert v Tamworth City Council (No 4)

In the matter of Herbert v Tamworth City Council (No 4), the respondent sought to have the applicant pay costs forthwith in accordance with rule 9(1) of Part 52A of the Supreme Court Rules. The dispute centred around an alleged offer by the respondent to the applicant to compromise liability in the proceedings, and whether this constituted an offer of compromise within the meaning of Part 22 of the Supreme Court Rules. The applicant argued that the offer to compromise liability was not an offer of compromise and that the offer did not comply with Part 22 of the Rules. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the respondent's offer was an offer of compromise and whether it complied with Part 22 of the Supreme Court Rules.

The court considered whether section 198D of the Legal Profession Act 1987 was subject to section 198F of the same Act. The court held that section 198D was not subject to section 198F and that the offer made by the respondent was not an offer of compromise. The court further found that the offer did not comply with Part 22 of the Supreme Court Rules as it was not in writing and was not made at least 14 days before the proceedings were determined. The court held that the respondent's offer to compromise liability was not an offer of compromise within the meaning of Part 22 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the respondent's application for an order for payment of costs forthwith. The court held that the offer made by the respondent did not comply with Part 22 of the Supreme Court Rules and was not an offer of compromise. The court did not make any orders regarding costs.