Legal Research
Cases
Liam Patrick Jones v Ronald Lloyd Walker

Liam Patrick Jones v Ronald Lloyd Walker

Case [2013] ACTSC 71 24 April 2013

Type to search within this case.

LIAM PATRICK JONES v RONALD LLOYD WALKER & Ors
[2013] ACTSC 71 (24 April 2013)

COSTS – action for damages for personal injury – liability in issue – plaintiff succeeding against two defendants but failing against a third – whether Bullock or Sanderson order justified in respect of costs of successful defendant – Calderbank offer by plaintiff and two defendants rejected by remaining defendant – effect – principles applicable to exercise of discretion – orders as to costs made reflecting rejection of Calderbank offer

Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 WLR 586
Quirk v Bawden (1992) 112 ACTR 1
Bullock v London General Omnibus Co [1907] 1 KB 264
Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533
Steppke v National Capital Development Commission (1978) 21 ACTR 23
Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215
Skerbic v McCormack [2008] ACTSC 4
Jennings v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co (ACT) Pty Ltd [2010] ACTSC 65
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Palmer (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 140
Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304
Whitbread v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 130
Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Milanex Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2011] NSWCA 367

No. SC 699 of 2004

Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 24 April 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SC 699 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

BETWEEN: LIAM PATRICK JONES
Plaintiff

AND: RONALD LLOYD WALKER
First Defendant
AND:CTR PACIFIC PTY LTD
ACN 064 405 232

Second Defendant

AND:CONSTRUCTION CONTROL ACT PTY LTD
ACN 089 635 218

Third Defendant

AND:TEREEL PTY LTD t/as CELTIC PLASTERING COMPANY
ABN 86 008 559 411

Third Party

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  24 April 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

the orders as to costs made on 31 May 2012 (orders 2 and 6) be vacated

the first defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs as between party and party

the second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs as between party and party up to 8 April 2009, and as between solicitor and own client from 9 April 2009

the second defendant pay the first defendant’s costs as between solicitor and client from 9 April 2009

the plaintiff pay the third defendant’s costs up to 8 April 2009

the second defendant pay the third defendant’s costs from 9 April 2009 as between solicitor and client

the third defendant pay the third party’s costs

the contribution proceedings between defendants be dismissed with no order as to costs

On 31 May 2012 I delivered judgment in this action for damages for personal injury. Damages had been agreed prior to trial at $606,789.45. The action went to trial to determine the issues of liability between the plaintiff, the three defendants and the third party. I found in the plaintiff’s favour against the first and second defendants, and apportioned the agreed damages equally between them. I found that the plaintiff had not established negligence on the part of the third…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Liam Patrick Jones v Ronald Lloyd Walker

Details

AGLC: Liam Patrick Jones v Ronald Lloyd Walker [2013] ACTSC 71
Case: [2013] ACTSC 71
Decision Date: 24 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Liam Patrick Jones v Ronald Lloyd Walker, the plaintiff, Liam Patrick Jones, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The dispute involved liability among multiple defendants, with the plaintiff succeeding against two defendants but failing against a third. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate costs order for the successful defendants, considering the rejection of a Calderbank offer by the unsuccessful defendant. The plaintiff and two defendants had made a Calderbank offer to the remaining defendant, which was rejected. The court had to apply the principles governing the exercise of discretion in such matters to decide whether a Bullock or Sanderson order was justified regarding the successful defendants' costs.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the principles that guide the exercise of discretion when determining costs in cases where a Calderbank offer has been made and subsequently rejected. The court had to consider whether the rejection of the Calderbank offer by the unsuccessful defendant justified the imposition of a Bullock or Sanderson order on the successful defendants. The Bullock order refers to an order where the successful party is not compensated for costs up to the point of the offer, while the Sanderson order involves a more stringent penalty, potentially barring the successful party from recovering any costs. The court was required to balance the factors influencing these orders, including the merits of the case, the timing of the offer, and the reasonableness of the offer itself.

In its reasoning, the court considered the principles applicable to the exercise of discretion in imposing costs orders in light of a rejected Calderbank offer. The court noted that the rejection of a Calderbank offer, which is a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute without proceeding to trial, can influence the court's discretion in awarding costs. The court determined that the rejection of the Calderbank offer by the unsuccessful defendant justified a Bullock order for the successful defendants, meaning they would not be compensated for costs up to the time of the offer. This decision reflected the court's assessment of the reasonableness and timing of the offer, as well as the unsuccessful defendant's conduct in rejecting it. The orders made by the court ensured that the successful defendants' costs were appropriately addressed in light of the rejected Calderbank offer.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On Count 1, that on 21 November 2008 George Dib trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely cocaine – a verdict of not guilty be entered.

2. On Count 2, that on 21 November 2008 George Dib trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely N, alpha-dimethyl-3, 4-(methylenedioxy) phenylethylamine (MDMA) – a verdict of not guilty be entered.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Liam Patrick Jones v Ronald Lloyd Walker [2013] ACTSC 71

Most Recent Citation

Faris v Savage (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 60

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

ACT Commercial Builders Pty Ltd v BBSJ Partners Pty Ltd
[2023] ACTMC 31

…LTD and Anor v BBSJ Partners PTY LTD [2021] ACTMC 17 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 33 Faris v Savage (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 60 Jones v Walker [2013] ACTSC 71 Pires v Dibbs Parker Canberra Pty Limted [2014] ACTSC 283 Xiao v ACT Commercial Builders PTY LTD [2023] ACTSC 44…
Faris v Savage (No 3)
[2021] ACTSC 60 Para 1

…I note what has been stated in relation to indemnity costs and Calberbank offers in Jones v Walker [2013] ACTSC 71 at [31].…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 10 of 10 shown

Hamod v State of New South Wales
[2011] NSWCA 367 Para 1

…ant did not justify it. Whitbread v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 130 and Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Milanex Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2011] NSWCA 367 were further examples of cases where the Court of Appeal was not satisfied that a Bullock or Sanderson order was justified.…
Whitbread v Rail Corporation New South Wales
[2011] NSWCA 130 Para 1

…a Sanderson order, again on the basis that the conduct of the unsuccessful defendant did not justify it. Whitbread v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 130 and Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Milanex Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2011] NSWCA 367 were further examples of cases where the Court of Appeal was not sat…
Rosemary Frances Jennings v Westfield Shopping Centre (ACN 008 612 002) and Reflections Cleaning Pty Limited (ACN 119 493 382)
[2010] ACTSC 65 Para 1

…In Jennings v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Co (ACT) Pty Ltd [2010] ACTSC 65, a personal injury claim against a shopping mall occupier and a cleaning contractor, where the plaintiff succeeded against the latter but not against the former, I found that the contractual relationship between the defendants plac…
Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2)
[2009] NSWCA 304 Para 1

…o join the RTA as a defendant, there was no conduct by the other defendants justifying a Bullock order. In Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304, the Court of Appeal refused to make a Sanderson order, again on the basis that the conduct of the unsuccessful defendant did not justify it. Whitbre…
Rebecca Margarita Skerbic v Patrick McCORMACK and Ors
[2008] ACTSC 4 Para 1

…In Skerbic v McCormack [2008] ACTSC 4 I declined to make a Bullock or Sanderson order against an unsuccessful defendant where the plaintiff had unsuccessfully sued another defendant, on the basis that there had been no conduct by the unsuccessful defendant which had led or encouraged the plaintiff to bring procee…
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Palmer (No 2)
[2005] NSWCA 140 Para 1

…for the first defendant took me to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales: Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Palmer (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 140, where Giles JA, with whom Spigelman CJ and Handley JA agreed, held that while it may have been reasonable for the plaintiff in her own interests to…
Gould v Vaggelas
[1985] HCA 75 Para 1

…This statement of principle was approved by a number of the justices of the High Court of Australia in Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215. Gibbs CJ said at 229:…
[1907] 1 KB 264
[1907] 1 KB 264 Para 1

…A Bullock order ( Bullock v London General Omnibus Co [1907] 1 KB 264) is an order that the plaintiff pay the costs of a successful defendant but add them as a disbursement to the plaintiff’s own costs recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant or defendants. A Sanderson order ( Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co [1903…
[1903] 2 KB 533
[1903] 2 KB 533 Para 1

…sbursement to the plaintiff’s own costs recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant or defendants. A Sanderson order ( Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533) is an order made against an unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs of a successful defendant as well as the costs of the plaintiff, and may be made n…
[1975] 3 WLR 586
[1975] 3 WLR 586 Para 1

…nce was given of settlement negotiations by correspondence between the parties, most of it in the form of Calderbank offers ( Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 WLR 586).…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.