LNCP002 Pty Ltd v Feridun Akcan (No 2)
Case
•
[2021] NSWSC 1018
•13 August 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
LNCP002 Pty Ltd v Feridun Akcan (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1018
[2021] NSWSC 1018
13 August 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of LNCP002 Pty Ltd v Feridun Akcan (No 2) involved an application for the variation of orders made by the court in a previous proceeding. The plaintiff, LNCP002 Pty Ltd, sought to vary the orders to reflect the findings of the primary judgment. The defendant, Feridun Akcan, opposed the application. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The court was required to decide whether the orders should be varied in light of the findings of the primary judgment, given that the parties had not reached an agreement by consent. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, as the defendant had made and refused an offer of compromise.
In its decision, the court found that the orders should be varied to give effect to the findings of the primary judgment. The court held that the plaintiff should not have known that the claim for possession could not reasonably succeed and, therefore, was entitled to indemnity costs. The court granted the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs, pursuant to UCPR r 42.15A.
The final orders of the court included the variation of the orders to reflect the findings of the primary judgment and the granting of indemnity costs to the plaintiff.
The court was required to decide whether the orders should be varied in light of the findings of the primary judgment, given that the parties had not reached an agreement by consent. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, as the defendant had made and refused an offer of compromise.
In its decision, the court found that the orders should be varied to give effect to the findings of the primary judgment. The court held that the plaintiff should not have known that the claim for possession could not reasonably succeed and, therefore, was entitled to indemnity costs. The court granted the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs, pursuant to UCPR r 42.15A.
The final orders of the court included the variation of the orders to reflect the findings of the primary judgment and the granting of indemnity costs to the plaintiff.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
2
Rory Paul Dobson v Australian Postal Corporation
[2013] HCASL 140