SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | McLennan v Clapham & Ors (No 2) |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 100 |
Hearing Date: | On the papers |
DecisionDate: | 18 April 2019 |
Before: | McWilliam AsJ |
Decision: | See [40] |
Catchwords: | COSTS – Whether defendants were really the successful party – whether Magistrates Court would have had jurisdiction to hear proceedings brought in the Supreme Court so that r 1725 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) applies – whether it was unreasonable for the plaintiffs to reject a Calderbank offer |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) ss 12, 13, 14, 15 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 257 |
Cases Cited: | Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333; 3 WLR 586 Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd (formerly Solar Tint Pty Ltd) v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 |
Parties: | Karen Lee McLennan (First Plaintiff) Andrew David Spong (Second Plaintiff) RA Clapham, PE Green, GT Brackenreg, RW McDonald, JR Reid, J Cudmore, K Scheul, CA Murray, A Tay and A Tsirimokos t/as Meyer Vandenberg ABN 55 028 339 509 (Defendants) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr B Buckland (Plaintiffs) Mr M Karam (Defendants) |
| Solicitors J.S. O’Connor Harris & Co (Plaintiffs) McInnes Wilson Lawyers (Defendants) | |
File Number: | SC 97 of 2015 |
McWilliam AsJ
On 29 January 2019, I delivered judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $37,638.34 and indicated that I would hear the parties on the question of costs: McLennan v Clapham and Ors [2019] ACTSC 1 (McLennan). Knowledge of the underlying facts of the case as set out in McLennan have been assumed for the purposes of this judgment.
The parties filed competing written submissions on costs on 12 March 2019 and 11 April 2019 respectively, with the defendants filing submissions in reply on 17 April 2019. Both parties agreed that they were prepared for the Court to deal with the question of costs on the papers.
The defendants seek alternative costs orders as follows:
(a) The plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding on the ordinary basis to 10am on 23 July 2018 (being the commencement of the hearing);
(b) Alternatively, the plaintiffs receive 50% of…
Continue reading McLennan v Clapham (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McLennan v Clapham (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 100
- Case
- [2019] ACTSC 100
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendants were indeed the successful party, whether the Magistrates Court would have had jurisdiction to hear the proceedings brought in the Supreme Court, and whether it was unreasonable for the plaintiffs to reject a Calderbank offer. The court examined whether the defendants' success in defeating the plaintiffs' claims justified an order for the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs. Additionally, the court considered whether the Magistrates Court would have had jurisdiction to hear the matter, which would determine the applicability of rule 1725, and whether the plaintiffs' refusal of a Calderbank offer was reasonable.
The court held that the defendants were not the successful party as the proceedings were brought in the Supreme Court, which had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court also found that it was not unreasonable for the plaintiffs to reject the Calderbank offer. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their costs from the defendants, as the defendants were not the successful party and the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable to reject. The court ordered that the plaintiffs were to recover their costs from the defendants.
In conclusion, the court ordered that the plaintiffs were to recover their costs from the defendants. The court's decision turned on the finding that the defendants were not the successful party, and that it was not unreasonable for the plaintiffs to reject the Calderbank offer. This outcome was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the court's interpretation of the relevant legal principles.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [40]
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.