Moyle v Quarles [No 4] - [2025] WASC 458

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   MOYLE -v- QUARLES [No 4] [2025] WASC 458
CORAM:   LUNDBERG J
HEARD:   28 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   14 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1770 of 2016
(Consolidated with CIV 1279 of 2022)

BETWEEN: ALAN LESLIE MOYLE
Plaintiff
AND
ALEXANDER FRANS HENRI QUARLES DE QUARLES as executor of the estate of LESLIE MOYLE
First Defendant
CHERIE PATRICIA CAMPBELL in her own capacity and as trustee for THE TESTAMENTARY TRUST CREATED IN THE WILL OF THE LATE LESLIE MOYLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF JOANNE MARGARET CAMPBELL
Second Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 2197 of 2022
BETWEEN: MOYLE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
ALEXANDER FRANS HENRI QUARLES DE QUARLES
First Defendant
QUARLES PTY LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Whether indemnity costs should be ordered - Calderbank offers made by the second defendant in the Company Proceeding - Offers required the parties to agree the terms of a settlement deed - Offers proposed the inclusion of terms as to mutual releases and settlement of claims beyond those in the proceedings - Whether these matters were such as to render non-acceptance of the offers by the plaintiff as not unreasonable - Exercise of the discretion

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 24A
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37.

Result:

Application for indemnity costs dismissed.

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 1770 of 2016

(Consolidated with CIV 1279 of 2022)

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	S P Tomasich
First Defendant	:	S M Standing
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Croftbridge
First Defendant	:	Arns & Associates
Second Defendant	:	Mossensons

CIV 2197 of 2022

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	S P Tomasich
First Defendant	:	S M Standing
Second Defendant	:	T Langdon

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Croftbridge
First Defendant	:	Arns & Associates
Second Defendant	:	Barry Nilsson Lawyers (WA)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Bowen Investments Pty Ltd v Tabcorp Holdings Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 107
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115 (2009) 41 WAR 1
Frigger v Lean [2012] WASCA 66
Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) [2005] VSCA 298; (2005) 13 VR 435
Jones v Bradley (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 258
Little v Saunders [2004] NSWSC 655
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223 (S)
Olivera Legal Pty Ltd v Cassegrain Tea Tree Oil Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1500
Rayney v Roberts [2022] WASC 360 (S)
Sim Development Pty Ltd v Greenvale Property Group Pty Ltd [2018] VSCA 201
Slater v Ecosol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] SASC 29
SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323
Strzelecki Holdings Pty Ltd v Jorgensen [2019] WASCA 96
Wirepa v Hill (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1654

LUNDBERG J:

A. Introduction

On 17 October 2025, the court delivered reasons for judgment in these actions (Reasons), referred to as the Estate Proceeding

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Moyle v Quarles [No 4]

Details

AGLC: Moyle v Quarles [No 4] [2025] WASC 458
Case: [2025] WASC 458
Decision Date: 14 NOVEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Moyle v Quarles [No 4], the parties were involved in ongoing litigation concerning indemnity costs. The dispute was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Moyle, sought indemnity costs against the defendants, Quarles and another party. The defendants had made Calderbank offers in a related company proceeding, which included terms that required the parties to agree on the terms of a settlement deed. These offers proposed the inclusion of terms as to mutual releases and settlement of claims beyond those in the proceedings.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the Calderbank offers were such that non-acceptance by the plaintiff was not unreasonable. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the inclusion of terms as to mutual releases and settlement of claims beyond those in the proceedings rendered non-acceptance of the offers by the plaintiff as not unreasonable. The court also needed to exercise its discretion on whether indemnity costs should be ordered in light of the offers.

The court found that the Calderbank offers, including the proposed terms for mutual releases and settlement of claims beyond those in the proceedings, were not unreasonable. The court reasoned that such terms were relevant to achieving a comprehensive and fair resolution of the disputes. As such, the court determined that the plaintiff's decision not to accept the offers was not unreasonable. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion and ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders