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: 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
Category: Costs Parties: Carlo Itskos (Plaintiff)
The Nominal Defendant (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr W Fitzsimmons SC (Plaintiff)
Marocchi Law (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2017/141335 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Following the mediation, the defendant advised that the matter would proceed to trial and that it would make no further offers.
-
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.
-
On 21 May 2021 the plaintiff served an offer of compromise on the basis of a verdict for…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 485
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.