Ryan v O'Halloran (No 2)

The case of Ryan v O'Halloran (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 230 was heard by Justice Loukas-Karlsson over 20 days. The plaintiff, Mark Ryan, originally sought damages arising from five incidents, which the court determined in a previous decision, Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited [2020] ACTSC 353 (Ryan v Bunnings). The current decision addresses costs orders sought by the third defendant, Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance, against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was successful in one claim but unsuccessful in the other. The third defendant sought various costs orders, including set off of the judgment sum against the costs orders.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the third defendant's costs in relation to two motor vehicle accidents (MVA 1 and MVA 2) and whether the set off application should be granted. The court examined the relevant legislation, including the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT) (repealed), the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 (ACT), and the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT). The court also considered relevant case law and texts on costs.

The court found that in respect of MVA 1, the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the third defendant's costs in the sum of $2,500, in accordance with s 155(2)(d) of the Third-Party Insurance Act and r 1720 of the Court Procedure Rules. The court also found that in respect of MVA 2, the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the third defendant's costs in the sum of $60,000. The court granted the set off application, reducing the costs payable by the plaintiff to $51,310. The court based its decision on the overriding purpose of reaching a fair and just result, the legislative intent to encourage early resolution of motor accident claims, and the plaintiff's financial difficulties.