Parry-Husbands v Roffe (No 2)

The respondents, Parry-Husbands, sought to transfer proceedings from the NCAT to the District Court, following the grant of a stay of the NCAT proceedings by the Tribunal. The applicants, Roffe, opposed the transfer and the respondents’ application for costs in relation to the transfer. The respondents submitted that the applicants unreasonably rejected a Calderbank offer in relation to the transfer of the proceedings and that an order for costs should be made as a result. The applicants denied that they unreasonably rejected the Calderbank offer and submitted that the transfer application should be dismissed on other grounds.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants unreasonably rejected a Calderbank offer in relation to the transfer of the proceedings and whether an order for costs should be made as a result. The court was also required to determine whether the transfer application should be dismissed on other grounds. The court noted that the applicants had not unreasonably rejected the Calderbank offer and that the transfer application should be dismissed on other grounds. The court found that there was no basis for an order for costs in relation to the transfer application.

The court found that the applicants had not unreasonably rejected the Calderbank offer. The court found that the applicants had provided a detailed and reasoned response to the offer and that the offer was not reasonable in the circumstances. The court found that the transfer application should be dismissed on other grounds. The court found that the transfer application was an abuse of process and that the respondents had acted unreasonably in bringing the application. The court found that there was no basis for an order for costs in relation to the transfer application.

The court dismissed the respondents’ application for costs in relation to the transfer of the proceedings to the District Court. The court lifted the stay of the NCAT proceedings and dismissed the respective costs applications of the parties. The court found that the costs of the transfer application were costs in the cause of the transferred proceedings.