Musleh v Sabri

[2003] NSWCA 215

CITATION:	Musleh v Sabri [2003] NSWCA 215
HEARING DATE(S):	30/07/03
JUDGMENT DATE:	30 July 2003
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 4; Ipp JA at 5
DECISION:	1. Leave to appeal granted, any necessary extension thereby being permitted; 2. The appeal is successful and in addition to the orders made below there is an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs after 18 December 2000; 3. Costs of this application to be borne by the opponent.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS - Offer of compromise not bettered by verdict at trial - Offeror's prima facie right to costs after date of offer.
PARTIES :	Ahmed J Musleh v Mahmoud Sabri
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 41095 of 2002
COUNSEL:	Claimant: J D Hislop QC Opponent: In Person
SOLICITORS:	Claimant: Curwood & Partners Opponent: Stephen Smart & Associates

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	000070/2000
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Williams DCJ

CA 41095 of 2002

MEAGHER JA
SHELLER JA
IPP JA

Wednesday, 30 July 2003

AHMED J MUSLEH v MAHMOUD SABRI

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: In this matter, the plaintiff Mr Sabri, sued the defendant Mr Musleh for damages arising out of a motor car accident. Liability was admitted so there is no doubt that the defendant, Mr Musleh had to suffer a verdict against him. In due course his Honour heard the action and gave the plaintiff a verdict of nearly $120,000 against Mr Musleh.

2 None of the merits of the case is currently of any concern to this Court. What is of concern is a question of costs. In December 2000 the defendant’s solicitor made an offer to compromise the case by making a payment in the sum of $180,000. That offer was not accepted. Prima facie, that gives the defendant the right to costs after that date. His Honour did not turn attention to this matter and neglected to make in favour of the defendant the order to which the defendant was entitled. It is on that question that the defendant now, as claimant, seeks leave to appeal.

3 The orders of the Court will be:

1. Leave to appeal granted, any necessary extension thereby being permitted.

2. The appeal is successful and in addition to the orders made below there is an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs after 18 December 2000.

3. Costs of this application to be borne by the opponent.

4 SHELLER JA: I agree with Meagher JA.

5 IPP JA: I agree with Meagher JA.

*****

Last Modified: 08/18/2003