Moore v Woodforth (No 2)

In *Moore v Woodforth (No 2)*, the plaintiff, Moore, appealed against an order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning the costs of an earlier appeal. The dispute centred on whether the costs order should be varied to reflect a pre-trial offer of compromise made by the plaintiff, which was less favourable than the outcome of the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it had the power to vary its previous costs order under the "slip rule" to account for the plaintiff's rejected offer of compromise. The court was required to consider the application of Supreme Court Rules Pt 52A r11 and whether the principles of *Calderbank* offers, which allow for costs orders to reflect the rejection of a settlement offer, were applicable in this context. A further question arose as to whether the court was bound by the District Court Rules Pt 39A r 25(6) in its determination.

The Court of Appeal held that the slip rule, as contained in Pt 52A r11, was not intended to allow for the reopening of an appeal on the merits of a costs discretion, particularly where the offer of compromise had not been renewed. The court found that the original costs order was not a nullity or a mistake in the sense contemplated by the slip rule. Furthermore, the court determined that it was not bound by the District Court Rules in this instance.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application to vary the costs order. However, the court did vary Order 2 made on 6 February 2003, though the precise nature of this variation is not detailed in the provided text beyond its effect on the costs order.