SHADDICK -v- JDV LTD [2012] WASC 120 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 120 (S) | |
| Case No: | CIV:1966/2004 | 29 NOVEMBER - 2 DECEMBER 2010, 18-21, 27-29 APRIL 2011, 6 MAY 2011, 27 APRIL 2012 | |
| Coram: | ALLANSON J | 5/04/12 | |
| 10/05/12 | |||
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Defendants to pay the costs of the third party in the third party proceedings Plaintiff and third party to pay the defendants' costs of the primary proceedings | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JANET SHADDICK JDV LTD LUKE MATTHEWS BRIAN JOHN SHADDICK |
Catchwords: | Costs Third party proceedings Award of costs against a nonparty Calderbank offer Whether rejection of Calderbank offer was reasonable Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 301 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1, O 19 r 1, O 19 r 12 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37 |
Case References: | Brymount Pty Ltd v Cummins (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 69 Burke v LFOT Pty Limited [2002] HCA 17; (2002) 209 CLR 282 Donald Campbell & Co v Pollak [1927] AC 732 Dunghutti Elders Council (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC v Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations (No 4) [2012] FCAFC 50 Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115; (2009) 41 WAR 1 Furber v Stacey [2005] NSWCA 242 Grbavac v Hart [1997] 1 VR 154 Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) [2005] VSCA 298; (2005) 13 VR 435 Henry v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [1985] WAR 137 Kheirs Financial Services Pty Ltd v Aussie Home Loans Pty Ltd [2010] VSCA 355 Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd [1992] HCA 28; (1992) 174 CLR 178 Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534 Lombard Insurance Co (Australia) Ltd v Pastro [1994] SASC 4481; (1994) 175 LSJS 448 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 RJ Baker Nominees Pty Ltd v Parsons Management Group Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 128 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
DECISION : 10 MAY 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 1966 of 2004 BETWEEN : JANET SHADDICK
- Plaintiff
AND
JDV LTD
First Defendant
LUKE MATTHEWS
Second Defendant
BRIAN JOHN SHADDICK
Third Party
Catchwords:
Costs - Third party proceedings - Award of costs against a nonparty - Calderbank offer - Whether rejection of Calderbank offer was reasonable - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 301
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1, O 19 r 1, O 19 r 12
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37
Result:
Defendants to pay the costs of…
Continue reading Shaddick v JDV Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Shaddick v JDV Ltd [2012] WASC 120 (S)
- Case
- [2012] WASC 120 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Shaddick v JDV Ltd, the plaintiff sought to recover costs from the third party in third party proceedings. The dispute centred on whether the rejection of a Calderbank offer by the defendants was reasonable and whether it was appropriate to award costs against a non-party. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court had to determine the legal principles surrounding the award of costs against a non-party in the context of third party proceedings and the relevance of a Calderbank offer in such circumstances.
The legal issues in the case were whether the rejection of the Calderbank offer was reasonable and whether it was appropriate to award costs against a non-party. The court considered the nature of a Calderbank offer, its purpose, and the circumstances in which it may be rejected. The court also examined the principles governing the award of costs against a non-party and whether a Calderbank offer could be a factor in such an award.
The court found that the rejection of the Calderbank offer was reasonable, given the specific facts of the case. The court held that the award of costs against a non-party in third party proceedings was not automatically justified and required careful consideration of the circumstances. The court held that the rejection of the Calderbank offer was a relevant factor in determining whether it was appropriate to award costs against the non-party. The court concluded that the award of costs against the non-party was justified in the circumstances of the case.
The court ordered that the defendants were to pay the costs of the third party in the third party proceedings. The court also ordered that the plaintiff and third party were to pay the defendants' costs of the primary proceedings. The court emphasised that the award of costs was a matter of discretion and turned on the specific facts of the case. The court held that the award of costs against a non-party was appropriate where the rejection of a Calderbank offer was reasonable and the circumstances warranted such an award.
The legal issues in the case were whether the rejection of the Calderbank offer was reasonable and whether it was appropriate to award costs against a non-party. The court considered the nature of a Calderbank offer, its purpose, and the circumstances in which it may be rejected. The court also examined the principles governing the award of costs against a non-party and whether a Calderbank offer could be a factor in such an award.
The court found that the rejection of the Calderbank offer was reasonable, given the specific facts of the case. The court held that the award of costs against a non-party in third party proceedings was not automatically justified and required careful consideration of the circumstances. The court held that the rejection of the Calderbank offer was a relevant factor in determining whether it was appropriate to award costs against the non-party. The court concluded that the award of costs against the non-party was justified in the circumstances of the case.
The court ordered that the defendants were to pay the costs of the third party in the third party proceedings. The court also ordered that the plaintiff and third party were to pay the defendants' costs of the primary proceedings. The court emphasised that the award of costs was a matter of discretion and turned on the specific facts of the case. The court held that the award of costs against a non-party was appropriate where the rejection of a Calderbank offer was reasonable and the circumstances warranted such an award.
Orders
Orders of the court
Defendants to pay the costs of the third party in the third party proceedings
Plaintiff and third party to pay the defendants' costs of the primary proceedings
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.