Spaulding v Eirth (No 2)

Case [2017] TASFC 2

[2017] TASFC 2

COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)

CITATION:                  Spaulding v Eirth (No 2) [2017] TASFC 2

PARTIES:  SPAULDING, Geoffrey Arthur
  v
  EIRTH, Troy Leslie

FILE NO:  FCA 276/2015
DELIVERED ON:  14 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 February 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Costs – Offers of compromise, payments into court and settlements – Offer of compromise or offer to settle or consent to judgment pursuant to rules – Matters relevant for court to order otherwise.

Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), rr 280(3)(a) and 289(2).
Clark v State of Tasmania [1999] TASSC 111, 9 Tas R 54; Marlow v Walsh (No 2) [2009] TASSC 40; Partridge v Hobart City Council (No 2) [2011] TASSC 35; Leach v The Nominal Defendant (QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd) (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 391, 18 ANZ Insurance Cases 62-049, referred to.
Aust Dig Procedure [556]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K E Read SC
             Respondent:  C H Hobbs
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Page Seager Lawyers
             Respondent:  Baker Wilson Lawyers

Judgment Number:  [2017] TASFC 2
Number of paragraphs:  35

Serial No 2/2017

File No FCA 276/2015

GEOFFREY ARTHUR SPAULDING v TROY LESLIE EIRTH (NO 2)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT

BLOW CJ
WOOD J
PEARCE J
14 March 2017

Orders of the Court

  1. That the order made on 2 April 2015 that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the action is set aside.

  1. That the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the action up to and including 13 November 2013 to be taxed as between party and party.

  1. That the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the action from 14 November 2013 to be taxed as between party and party.

  1. That the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal to be taxed as between party and party.

Serial No 2/2017
File No FCA 276/2015

GEOFFREY ARTHUR SPAULDING v TROY LESLIE EIRTH (NO 2)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT

BLOW CJ
14 March 2017

  1. I agree with the orders proposed by Pearce J, and with his Honour's reasons.

  2. I would like to add a little in relation to the costs of the cross-appeal.  Strictly speaking, the cross-appeal was successful, but only to the extent that two grounds of appeal were upheld.  One of those grounds, relating to motor vehicle expenses, resulted in the final judgment sum being only $1,000 higher than it otherwise would have been. The other successful ground resulted in an adjustment of $15,000 in the respondent's favour.  However most of the grounds of the cross-appeal were unsuccessful. In addition, the respondent was unsuccessful in an application that was made during the hearing of the appeal when he sought to add another ground.  In the circumstances, I think it is appropriate to treat the cross-appeal as having been substantially unsuccessful.

    File No FCA 276/2015

GEOFFREY ARTHUR SPAULDING v TROY LESLIE EIRTH…

Continue reading Spaulding v Eirth (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Spaulding v Eirth (No 2) [2017] TASFC 2
Case
[2017] TASFC 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Spaulding v Eirth (No 2)*, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered an appeal concerning the costs of an action and a cross-appeal. The dispute arose from an earlier costs order made on 2 April 2015, which directed the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the action.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the original costs order was appropriate, particularly in light of an offer of compromise made by the appellant. The court was required to determine the extent to which the appellant's offer to settle, made on 13 November 2013, should influence the allocation of costs between the parties for the action and the appeal.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the offer of compromise made by the appellant on 13 November 2013 was a significant factor in determining the appropriate costs order. The court applied the principle that where a party makes an offer of compromise that is more favourable than the ultimate outcome for the other party, the court may order that the offering party recover their costs from the date of the offer. Consequently, the court set aside the original order and made a revised order. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the action up to and including 13 November 2013, while the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the action from 14 November 2013 onwards. Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the order made on 2 April 2015 that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the action is set aside.

2. That the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the action up to and including 13 November 2013 to be taxed as between party and party.

3. That the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the action from 14 November 2013 to be taxed as between party and party.

4. That the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal to be taxed as between party and party.

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.