Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green

Case [2004] NSWCA 341


CITATION: Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341
HEARING DATE(S): written submissions
JUDGMENT DATE:
22 September 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA at 1; Bryson JA at 59; Stein AJA at 61
DECISION: Application for indemnity costs dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: COSTS - application for indemnity costs - Calderbank letter sent by appellant prior to proceedings below offering settlement in terms "verdict in favour of the Council with each party to bear its own costs" - whether genuine offer of compromise - whether discretion to award indemnity costs should be exercised.
LEGISLATION CITED: District Court Act 1973 s148B; Pts 19A and 39A r25
Legal Practitioners Act 1987 Division 6 of Pt 11
Supreme Court Act 1970 s76; Pts 22 and 52A r22
CASES CITED: Bishop v State of NSW (Dunford J, 17 December 2000, unreported)
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Byrnes v Burwood Council [2002] NSWCA 343
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290
Colgate Palmolive v Cussons (1993) 118 ALR 248
Computer Machinery Co Ltd v Drescher [1983] 1 WLR 1379
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397
GIO General Ltd v ABB Installation & Service Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 118
Hillier v Sheather (1995) 36 NSWLR 414
Hobartville Stud v Union Insurance Co (1991) 25 NSWLR 358
Jones v Bradley (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 258
Laguillo v Haden Engineering Pty Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 306
Maitland Hospital v Fisher (No 2) (1992) 27 NSWLR 721
McKerlie v State of New South Wales (No. 2) [2000] NSWSC 1159
Morgan v Johnson (1998) 44 NSWLR 578
Multicon Engineering Pty Limited v Federal Airports Corp (1996) 138 ALR 425
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Richmond Valley Council v Standing [2002] NSWCA 359
RTA v McGuinness [2002] NSWCA 210
Singh v Singh (No 2) [2004] NSWSC 225
SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323
Tickell v Trifleska Pty Ltd (1991) 25 NSWLR 353

PARTIES :

LEICHHARDT MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (Appellant)
Kevin Anthony GREEN (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40448/03
COUNSEL: K M GUILFOYLE (Appellant)
P R STERNBERG (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Phillips Fox (Appellant)
Elias Gates & Associates (Respondent)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 10367/02
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Garling DCJ


                          CA 40448/03
                          DC 10367/02

                          SANTOW JA
                          BRYSON JA
                          STEIN AJA

                          22 SEPTEMBER 2004
LEICHHARDT MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v Kevin Anthony GREEN
Judgment

1 SANTOW JA:

      INTRODUCTION
      Since judgment was delivered, submissions have been received by both parties following the successful appeal by Leichhardt Municipal Council, defendant in an action brought by the respondent. Essentially the successful appellant seeks a variation of the order for costs so as to obtain costs on an indemnity basis from 19 March 2003. It bases its application on what it contends is the proper application of the principles in Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333, following an offer to…

Continue reading Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341
Case
[2004] NSWCA 341
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leichhardt Municipal Council (the appellant) sought indemnity costs from Green (the respondent) following proceedings in the Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned the appellant's entitlement to indemnity costs, arising from a settlement offer made by the appellant prior to the original proceedings. This offer proposed that the verdict would be in favour of the Council, with each party bearing its own costs.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant's offer constituted a genuine offer of compromise, and if so, whether the discretion to award indemnity costs should be exercised in its favour. The court was required to assess the nature and effect of the settlement offer in the context of the subsequent proceedings and the final outcome.

The Court of Appeal determined that the offer made by the appellant was not a genuine offer of compromise. The court reasoned that the offer was framed in a way that presupposed a favourable verdict for the Council, rather than proposing a compromise on the disputed issues. Consequently, the court found no basis to exercise its discretion to award indemnity costs.

The application for indemnity costs was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent in relation to that application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for indemnity costs dismissed with costs.

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.