Marinis v Jeweller
Case
•
[2000] NSWCA 282
•17 October 2000
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Marinis v Jeweller [2000] NSWCA 282
[2000] NSWCA 282
17 October 2000
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned an application for adequate provision from the estate of a deceased person under the *Family Provision Act 1982* (NSW). The appellant, the de facto spouse of the deceased, sought provision from the estate, while the respondent was the executor. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant the respondent's belated application for indemnity costs. This application was based on a settlement offer made by the respondent during the pendency of the appeal, which the appellant ultimately failed to achieve a better result than.
The Court noted that while the settlement offer was not formally a *Calderbank* offer, it could still be taken into account for costs. The Court reasoned that the offer was made sufficiently early in the appeal process for the appellant to have reasonably considered it, and that parties should give serious consideration to such offers. However, the Court also acknowledged that the appeal was not entirely hopeless. Balancing these factors, the Court concluded that a special order for indemnity costs was not warranted in the proper exercise of discretion. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant the respondent's belated application for indemnity costs. This application was based on a settlement offer made by the respondent during the pendency of the appeal, which the appellant ultimately failed to achieve a better result than.
The Court noted that while the settlement offer was not formally a *Calderbank* offer, it could still be taken into account for costs. The Court reasoned that the offer was made sufficiently early in the appeal process for the appellant to have reasonably considered it, and that parties should give serious consideration to such offers. However, the Court also acknowledged that the appeal was not entirely hopeless. Balancing these factors, the Court concluded that a special order for indemnity costs was not warranted in the proper exercise of discretion. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Reliance
-
Offer and Acceptance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Marinis v Jeweller [2000] NSWCA 282
Most Recent Citation
Barsoum v Glebe Administration Board (No. 2) [2002] NSWADT 174
Cases Citing This Decision
9
Dighton v Norwood
[2024] NSWSC 318
Sarant v Sarant
[2020] NSWSC 1686
Weekes v Barlow
[2014] NSWSC 1776
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40