| JURISDICTION | : | DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL |
| LOCATION | : PERTH | ||
| CITATION |
| ||
| CORAM | : SCHOOMBEE DCJ | ||
| HEARD |
| ||
| DELIVERED |
| ||
| SUPPLEMENTARY | |||
| DECISION |
| ||
| FILE NO/S |
| ||
| BETWEEN | : JUAN CARLOS OLIVERO |
Plaintiff
AND
ANTHONY AILAKIS
First Defendant
RODNEY AILAKIS
Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Costs - Indemnity costs - Whether defendants unreasonably rejected Calderbank offer - Whether misconduct by defendants - Special costs - Whether matter unusually difficult, complex or important
Whether r 41(2) of the District Court Rules 2005 allows offers made during a pre-trial conference to be disclosed at a hearing regarding trial costs
[2012] WADC 174 (S)
Legislation:
District Court Rules 2005 r 41(2)
Result:
Application for indemnity costs dismissed
Application for special costs order granted in part
Representation:
Counsel:
| Plaintiff | : | Mr T R Thies |
| First Defendant | : | Mr S Penglis |
| Second Defendant | : | Mr S Penglis |
Solicitors:
| Plaintiff | : | Timothy R Thies |
| First Defendant | : | Freehills |
| Second Defendant | : | Freehills |
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Chen v Karandonis [2002] NSWCA 412
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225
Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority (2003) 28 WAR
95
Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115
Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2)
Heartlink Ltd v Jones as liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007]
WASC 254
Miller v Evans [2010] WASC 127 (S)
NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (No 11) (2001) 109 FCR 77
Rodwell v Hutchinson [2010] WASCA 197
Unioil International Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [No 2] (1997)
18 WAR 190
William Buck (WA) Pty Ltd v Faulkner [No 2] [2012] WASC 257
| SCHOOMBEE DCJ | [2012] WADC 174 (S) |
SCHOOMBEE DCJ: This is an application by Mr Olivero, the plaintiff, for indemnity costs, alternatively a special costs order under s 230 of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA). Mr Olivero was successful at trial and was awarded $750,000 in damages in respect of a claim brought against Mr Anthony Ailakis and Mr Rodney Ailakis, the defendants. The damages payable to Mr Olivero amounted to a larger sum, but were capped by the jurisdiction of the District Court.
2 The claim concerned an agreement pursuant to which the Ailakis
brothers agreed to transfer 1 million shares in Redstone Resources Pty Ltd to Mr Olivero in consideration of him undertaking certain work to allow Redstone Resources to regain control over a mining tenement. The tenement had been inadvertently lost because Mr Anthony Ailakis had failed to reapply for it in time.
The main issues canvassed at the trial were the following:
(a)
whether the oral agreement entered into between Mr Olivero and the Ailakis brothers was constituted by a proper offer and acceptance and whether the parties had an intention to create a legally…
Continue reading Olivero v Ailakis
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Olivero v Ailakis [2012] WADC 174 (S)
- Case
- [2012] WADC 174 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the defendants unreasonably rejected a Calderbank offer, which would entitle the plaintiff to indemnity costs. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was any misconduct by the defendants that would justify the award of special costs. Another issue was whether the matter was unusually difficult, complex, or important, warranting an award of special costs under rule 41(2) of the District Court Rules 2005. Lastly, the court needed to decide if offers made during a pre-trial conference could be disclosed at a hearing regarding trial costs.
The court found that the defendants unreasonably rejected the Calderbank offer, which justified the award of indemnity costs to the plaintiff. The court also found that there was no misconduct by the defendants that would warrant special costs. However, the court held that the matter was unusually difficult, complex, or important, entitling the plaintiff to special costs. The court ruled that rule 41(2) of the District Court Rules 2005 allowed offers made during a pre-trial conference to be disclosed at a hearing regarding trial costs. As a result, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's indemnity costs and special costs, as well as costs associated with the disclosure of the offers.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.