McIntyre v DRW Constructions Pty Ltd; DRW Constructions Pty Ltd v McIntyre
Case
•
[2018] NSWCATCD 58
•19 October 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
McIntyre v DRW Constructions Pty Ltd; DRW Constructions Pty Ltd v McIntyre [2018] NSWCATCD 58
[2018] NSWCATCD 58
19 October 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
McIntyre and DRW Constructions Pty Ltd were involved in a dispute that was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The case involved a claim for damages for defective building work, with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had failed to complete the work to an acceptable standard. The defendant, in turn, sought to recover costs associated with the proceedings. The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the plaintiff had unreasonably refused a settlement offer made by the defendant, which would have impacted the apportionment of costs between the parties.
In considering the issue of costs, the tribunal noted that the defendant had made a settlement offer through a Calderbank letter. The tribunal examined the circumstances surrounding the offer, including the evidence presented by both parties and the merits of the case. The tribunal determined that the plaintiff had not unreasonably refused the settlement offer and therefore the defendant was not entitled to an order for costs based on the offer. The tribunal also considered the overall conduct of the proceedings and found that both parties had acted reasonably, leading to the conclusion that each party should bear their own costs.
Given the findings on the settlement offer and the overall conduct of the proceedings, the tribunal made an order that a hearing on costs was dispensed with. The order also specified that both parties were to pay their own costs of the proceedings in two separate matters, HB 14/51956 and HB 16/15535. This decision reflects the tribunal's view that neither party was entitled to an order for costs based on the defendant's settlement offer or the overall conduct of the case.
In considering the issue of costs, the tribunal noted that the defendant had made a settlement offer through a Calderbank letter. The tribunal examined the circumstances surrounding the offer, including the evidence presented by both parties and the merits of the case. The tribunal determined that the plaintiff had not unreasonably refused the settlement offer and therefore the defendant was not entitled to an order for costs based on the offer. The tribunal also considered the overall conduct of the proceedings and found that both parties had acted reasonably, leading to the conclusion that each party should bear their own costs.
Given the findings on the settlement offer and the overall conduct of the proceedings, the tribunal made an order that a hearing on costs was dispensed with. The order also specified that both parties were to pay their own costs of the proceedings in two separate matters, HB 14/51956 and HB 16/15535. This decision reflects the tribunal's view that neither party was entitled to an order for costs based on the defendant's settlement offer or the overall conduct of the case.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
-
Calderbank Letter
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
McIntyre v DRW Constructions Pty Ltd; DRW Constructions Pty Ltd v McIntyre [2018] NSWCATCD 58
Most Recent Citation
Fish v Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD 98
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Fish v Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWCATCD 98
Fish v Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWCATCD 98
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
3
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2)
[2001] FCA 1865
James v Surf Road Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2005] NSWCA 296
Sydney Ferries v Morton (No 2)
[2010] NSWCA 238