Jones v Dapto Leagues Club Limited (No 2)
Case
•
[2008] NSWCA 111
•27 May 2008
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jones v Dapto Leagues Club Limited (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 111
[2008] NSWCA 111
27 May 2008
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Jones v Dapto Leagues Club Limited (No 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application for substituted orders concerning costs following an earlier decision. The dispute revolved around the appropriate basis for assessing the costs of proceedings at first instance, particularly in light of an offer of compromise made by the defendant, Dapto Leagues Club Limited.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the costs of the proceedings at first instance should be awarded on an ordinary or indemnity basis, and from what point in time any shift in the basis of assessment should occur. This question arose in the context of rule 20.26 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW), which governs the consequences of an offer of compromise on costs.
The Court of Appeal, with Mason P delivering the leading judgment, determined that the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings at first instance. However, the assessment of these costs was to be divided. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis up to 11 am on 11 October 2006. Thereafter, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis. This division reflected the court's assessment of the impact of the offer of compromise made by the defendant.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal substituted its own order for the one previously made on 18 March 2008. The judgment for the plaintiff was amended to $30,152, effective from 8 December 2006, and the costs order was specified as outlined above, with Mason P, Beazley JA, and Bell JA all agreeing.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the costs of the proceedings at first instance should be awarded on an ordinary or indemnity basis, and from what point in time any shift in the basis of assessment should occur. This question arose in the context of rule 20.26 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW), which governs the consequences of an offer of compromise on costs.
The Court of Appeal, with Mason P delivering the leading judgment, determined that the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings at first instance. However, the assessment of these costs was to be divided. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis up to 11 am on 11 October 2006. Thereafter, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis. This division reflected the court's assessment of the impact of the offer of compromise made by the defendant.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal substituted its own order for the one previously made on 18 March 2008. The judgment for the plaintiff was amended to $30,152, effective from 8 December 2006, and the costs order was specified as outlined above, with Mason P, Beazley JA, and Bell JA all agreeing.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Offer and Acceptance
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
KFS Financial Services Pty Ltd v Abdul Mostamandi [2017] NSWSC 396
Cases Citing This Decision
2
LCM Operations Pty Ltd v Rabah Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 3)
[2023] NSWSC 869
KFS Financial Services Pty Ltd v Abdul Mostamandi
[2017] NSWSC 396
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
1