Roads and Traffic Authority v McGregor (No 2)

CITATION:	Roads and Traffic Authority v McGregor & Anor (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 453 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	Matter deallt with on written submissions in Chambers.
JUDGMENT DATE:	16 December 2005
JUDGMENT OF:	McColl JA at 1; Campbell AJA at 1; Bell J at 1
DECISION:	1. Roads and Traffic Authority and Woollahra Municipal Council to pay 85 percent of Mrs McGregor’s costs of the appeal and cross-appeal; 2. Such costs be met as to 40 percent by the Roads and Traffic Authority and as to 60 percent by the Woollahra Municipal Council; 3. Mrs McGregor is to have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 if otherwise entitled.

CATCHWORDS:	Costs - Indemnity costs - Offers of compromise - Multiple isues.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Civil Liability Act 2002 Suitors' Fund Act 1951
CASES CITED:	Geoghan v D'Aubert [2003] NSWCA 260 James v Surf Road Nominees Pty Ltd (No2) [2005] NSWCA 296 Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261 Baresic v Slingshot Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 160
PARTIES:	Roads and Traffic Authority - Appellant Anne McGregor - First Respondent Woollahra Municipal Council - Second Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40277/04
COUNSEL:	G M Watson SC with A J McInerney - Appellant M L Williams SC with I A Newbrun - First Respondent D L Davies SC with N J Polin - Second Respondent
SOLICITORS:	McCabe Terrill - Appellant Carroll & O'Dea - First Respondent Phillips Fox - Second Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	2941/02
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Bishop DCJ

CA 40277/04
DC 2941/02

McCOLL JA
M W CAMPBELL AJA
BELL J

Friday 16 December 2005

ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY v ANNE McGREGOR & ANOR (No 2)

Judgment

1 THE COURT: The Court delivered judgment in this matter on 11 November 2005 [2005] NSWCA 388. It allowed, in part, an appeal by the RTA and a cross-appeal by the Woollahra Municipal Council against a verdict and judgment in favour of Mrs McGregor in the sum of $234,957. A challenge by the RTA and the Council to Mrs McGregor’s verdict was rejected but the damages were reduced by $56,106 being the amount allowed for future domestic assistance. An apportionment made by the trial judge, his Honour Judge Bishop of the District Court, was confirmed.

2 The parties not having agreed on appropriate cost orders, written submissions, including submissions in reply, have been provided as to such orders.

3 No party has submitted that an indemnity costs order made by the trial judge pursuant to Pt 39A r 25(4) of the District Court Rules, should be reviewed or altered.

4 The RTA has submitted that, as the apportionment order was confirmed, the Council, which challenged it in its cross-appeal and presented argument on the issue, should pay the RTA’s costs of the cross-appeal.

5 However, the RTA included a challenge to the…