District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lumina BPO Pty Limited v ELB Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWDC 713 Hearing dates: 1 September 2020 Date of orders: 1 September 2020 Decision date: 01 September 2020 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: P Taylor SC DCJ Decision: Defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs:
(a) on the ordinary basis up to and including 20 December 2019; and
(b) on the indemnity basis from 21 December 2019.
Catchwords: COSTS – indemnity costs – offer of compromise
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 20.26, r 42.1
Cases Cited: Hurford Hardwood Kempsey Pty Ltd v Kempsey Timbers (Sawmilling) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1248
Jojeni Investments Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 208
Lumina BPO Pty Limited v ELB Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 712
Category: Costs Parties: Lumina BPO Pty Limited (plaintiff)
ELB Pty Ltd (defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr D Neggo (plaintiff)
Watson Mangioni Lawyers Pty Ltd (plaintiff)
John de Mestre & Co Solicitors Pty Ltd (defendant)
File Number(s): 2019/228108 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
-
After obtaining judgment,[1] the plaintiff makes an application for a special costs order.
1. Lumina BPO Pty Limited v ELB Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 712.
-
The plaintiff seeks an order that its costs be paid on an indemnity basis from 21 December 2019. The application is founded on an offer of compromise dated 20 December 2019. The defendant did not dispute the entitlement of the plaintiff to its costs on the ordinary basis under r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.
-
The offer was in the following terms:
"The Plaintiff offers to compromise the whole of its claim against the Defendant on the following terms:
1. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of $110,000.
2. No order as to costs, such that each party bears their own costs.
3. This offer of compromise is made in accordance with rule 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
4. This offer of compromise is open for acceptance for a period of 28 days from the date of this offer."
-
The judgment was more favourable to the plaintiff than that proposed in the offer of compromise.
-
An issue arose as to whether the reference to costs in the offer took it outside r 20.26. The plaintiff referred to the decision of Hurford Hardwood Kempsey Pty Ltd v Kempsey Timbers (Sawmilling) Pty Ltd (No 2),[2] where his Honour Stevenson J referred in [16] to Jojeni Investments Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (No 2) [3] at [12], where the Court of Appeal determined that:
“…there is no difference between an offer containing a term that each party bear its own costs, and an offer which is silent as to costs. Such an offer does not contravene r 20.26(2)(c).”
And Stevenson J concluded that “the same must apply to an offer that proposes that there be ‘no order as to costs’”. [4]
-
This principle must also apply to an offer that includes an order "No order as to costs, such that each party bears their own costs". That term of the offer does not contravene UCPR 20.26(2)(c), that an offer "must not include an amount for costs and must not be expressed to be inclusive of costs”.
-
There is no other reason why the discretion to award indemnity costs from the date of the offer was not enlivened; no matters of discretion were put to me against making the order sought. Indeed, the defendant expressly elected not to put any submissions about the matter of discretion.
-
I propose to make the order sought. Order 2 of the judgment today will therefore be that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs:
on the ordinary basis up to and including 20 December 2019; and
on the indemnity basis from 21 December 2019.
**********
Endnotes
- AGLC
- Lumina BPO Pty Limited v ELB Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWDC 713
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 713
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the defendant's offer of compromise was a significant factor in determining the costs order. The court noted that under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, a party may be entitled to indemnity costs if the other party unreasonably refuses an offer of compromise. The court examined the terms of the offer and whether the plaintiff's refusal was reasonable. It concluded that the plaintiff's refusal was unreasonable given the merits of the defendant's position and the terms of the offer. Therefore, the court found that the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs from the date the offer was made.
The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis up until 20 December 2019, and on the indemnity basis from 21 December 2019. This order reflects the court's determination that the defendant's offer of compromise was a significant factor in the outcome of the case. The defendant's unreasonable refusal of this offer justified the award of indemnity costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs:
(a) on the ordinary basis up to and including 20 December 2019; and
(b) on the indemnity basis from 21 December 2019.
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.