SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Hulanicki v Walton (No 2) |
Citation: | [2015] ACTCA 45 |
Written Submissions: | 30 April, 15 May and 22 May 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 31 August 2015 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Penfold JJ |
Decision: | The order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs in the Court below on a party/party basis is confirmed. The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal on a party/party basis. |
Category: | Costs |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – Costs – Calderbank offer – rejection – reasonableness |
Legislation Cited: | Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37O Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 1721(1), 1751, 5001 |
Cases Cited: | Amaca Pty Ltd v Moss [2007] WASCA 162 (S) |
Parties: | Jessica Irene Hulanicki BHNF Helen Hulanicki (Appellant) Clare Louise Walton (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr A Bartley SC with Mr F Tuscano (Appellant) Mr P Deakin QC with Ms K James (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Ken Cush & Associates (Appellant) DLA Piper (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 13 of 2014 |
Decisions under appeal: | Court: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 7 March 2014 Case Title: Hulanicki v Walton Citation: [2014] ACTSC 17 |
| Court: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 24 July 2014 Case Title: Hulanicki v Walton (No 2) Citation: [2014] ACTSC 174 |
THE COURT:
The appellant appealed against the primary judge’s assessment of damages associated with a severe traumatic brain injury arising from a motor vehicle accident. On 24 July 2014, the primary judge awarded damages of $3,946,775.98 (plus damages for the cost of funds management of $1,307,172).
On 24 April 2015, this Court delivered its reasons for judgment and directed the parties to prepare short minutes of order: Hulanicki v Walton [2015] ACTCA 14. On 11 May 2015, the Court ordered that:
(a)Orders 1, 2 and 3 made by the Court below on 24 July 2014 are set aside.
(b)In lieu thereof, there is…
Continue reading Hulanicki v Walton (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hulanicki v Walton (No 2) [2015] ACTCA 45
- Case
- [2015] ACTCA 45
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's rejection of a *Calderbank* offer made by the appellant was unreasonable, thereby justifying an order for the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.
The Court confirmed the order of the Court below that the respondent pay the appellant's costs on a party/party basis. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal on a party/party basis, indicating that the rejection of the *Calderbank* offer was not deemed unreasonable to warrant indemnity costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs in the Court below on a party/party basis is confirmed.
The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal on a party/party basis.
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.