Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hunter v Roberts (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 235 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 24 September 2019 Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Brereton JA at [1];
Simpson AJA at [1].Decision: 1. Vary order 9 made on 20 May 2019 to read as follows:
9. Order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis up to and including 24 December 2018, and thereafter, on an indemnity basis.
2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this motion.Catchwords: COSTS – application for indemnity costs following rejection of Calderbank offer – where offer accompanied by written submissions in the appeal –where applicant’s prospects of success very good – whether respondent acted unreasonably in refusing offer Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 3
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), Pt 7, Div 3
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 73
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.16, 42.1, 42.2Cases Cited: Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93
Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd & Anor v Salmon [2007] NSWCA 322
Karambelas v Zaknic (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 433; (2014) 69 MVR 127
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341
Perisher Blue Pty Ltd v Nair-Smith (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 268
SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323Category: Costs Parties: Kelly Hunter (applicant)
Jonathon Roberts (respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A Casselden SC / J Malouf (applicant)
I D Roberts SC (respondent)
Gerard Malouf & Partners (applicant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/242181 Publication restriction: N/A Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Date of Decision:
- 23 March 2018
- Before:
- Wass SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2016/91722
Judgment
-
THE COURT: The Court’s judgment of 20 May 2019 allowed the applicant’s appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing, on the ground of delay, her statement of claim in which she sought damages for personal injury suffered in a motor accident (Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 73(5)). In doing so, the Court made the following orders as to costs:
8. Order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of [the motion in the District Court].
9. Order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal.
-
By her notice of motion of 23 May 2019 the applicant seeks an order pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), r 36.16(1) that order 9 above be varied as follows:
9. Order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal:
i. on an ordinary basis up until and including 24 December 2018; and
ii. thereafter, on an indemnity basis.
-
That application was brought within the 14 days provided by sub-rule (3A), enlivening this Court’s power under r 36.16(1) to vary the earlier costs order.
-
In support of the proposed variation, the applicant relies on an informal “Calderbank” offer (from Calderbank v Calderbank [1976]…
Continue reading Hunter v Roberts (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hunter v Roberts (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 235
- Case
- [2019] NSWCA 235
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent had acted unreasonably in refusing the applicant's Calderbank offer, which had been accompanied by written submissions detailing the applicant's very good prospects of success on appeal. This determination was crucial for deciding whether the costs of the appeal should be awarded on an indemnity basis from the date the offer was made.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the respondent's refusal of the offer was unreasonable in the circumstances. The applicant's prospects of success were assessed as very good, and the offer was made in a manner that clearly articulated the basis for this assessment. Consequently, the Court found that the respondent ought to have accepted the offer, and therefore, the costs of the appeal should be awarded on an indemnity basis from the date the offer was made.
The Court ordered that the order for costs made on 20 May 2019 be varied to provide that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis up to and including 24 December 2018, and thereafter, on an indemnity basis. The respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Vary order 9 made on 20 May 2019 to read as follows:
9. Order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis up to and including 24 December 2018, and thereafter, on an indemnity basis.
2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this motion.
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.