Itskos v The Nominal Defendant (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Itskos v The Nominal Defendant (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 485
Hearing dates: 19 August 2021
Date of orders: 22 September 2021
Decision date: 22 September 2021
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: J Smith SC, DCJ
Decision:

Orders of the Court are found at [16] of this judgment

Catchwords:

COSTS – Variation of costs order – contributory negligence – offers of compromise - ordinary and indemnity basis

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:

Equity 8 Pty Limited v Shaw Stockbroking Limited [2007] NSWSC 503

Morgan v Johnson (1998) 44 NSWLR 578

Ryan v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 129

Vale v Eggins (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 12

Category:Costs
Parties: Carlo Itskos (Plaintiff)
The Nominal Defendant (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr W Fitzsimmons SC (Plaintiff)

Solicitors:
Marocchi Law (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2017/141335
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. On 18 January 2015 the plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle accident. He claimed that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of another vehicle but he was unable to identify either the vehicle or the driver. For that reason, he commenced proceedings against the Nominal Defendant.

  2. On 17 June 2021 I gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $585,000 and ordered the defendant to pay 90% of the plaintiff’s costs. Both the damages and costs orders were made on the basis of my conclusion that the plaintiff’s own negligence had contributed to the accident.

  3. The plaintiff now applies for a variation of the costs order. He relies on three offers of compromise made by him during the course of the proceedings under r 42.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR). The following facts were not in dispute and are taken from the plaintiff’s written submissions.

  4. The proceedings were commenced on 11 May 2017. On 8 May 2018 the plaintiff served an expert liability report. On 28 May 2018 the plaintiff served an offer of compromise being an offer of judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $360,000 (First Offer). That offer was not accepted. On 2 June 2020 the defendant served an offer of compromise being for a verdict for the defendant with each party to pay its own costs. That offer was not accepted by the plaintiff.

  5. On 7 September 2020 the parties engaged in mediation. As a result of that mediation, damages were agreed in the sum of $650,000. The issue of liability remained contested.

  6. Following the mediation, the defendant advised that the matter would proceed to trial and that it would make no further offers.

  7. On 8 September 2020 the plaintiff served an offer of compromise on the basis that there be a verdict for the plaintiff with the damages reduced by 50% for contributory negligence (Second Offer). That offer was not accepted.

  8. On 21 May 2021 the plaintiff served an offer of compromise on the basis of a verdict for…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Itskos v The Nominal Defendant (No 2) 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
[2021] NSWDC 485
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court involved a dispute between Itskos and The Nominal Defendant, a matter concerning the variation of a costs order in relation to contributory negligence and offers of compromise. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant, Itskos, sought to challenge a costs order made in the Federal Circuit Court, arguing that it should have been ordered on an indemnity rather than an ordinary basis due to the respondent's contributory negligence and offers of compromise.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Circuit Court correctly assessed the contributory negligence of Itskos and whether the offers of compromise by the respondent were relevant to the assessment of costs. The court needed to determine if these factors warranted a costs order on an indemnity basis instead of the ordinary basis.

The court examined the principles governing costs orders, particularly focusing on the distinction between ordinary and indemnity costs. It considered the extent of Itskos's contributory negligence and the nature of the offers of compromise made by The Nominal Defendant. The court found that the Federal Circuit Court had adequately assessed Itskos's contributory negligence and had appropriately taken into account the offers of compromise. It concluded that these factors did not warrant an indemnity costs order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original costs order was upheld. The orders of the court are detailed in paragraph [16] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders of the Court are found at [16] of this judgment

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.