Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Stuart Klees v M101 Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 271 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 22 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List Before: Hammerschlag J Decision: Plaintiff to pay the costs of the third and fourth defendants on an ordinary basis
Catchwords: COSTS – settlement offers – whether non-acceptance of settlement offers made by the fourth defendant warrants ordering indemnity costs against the unsuccessful plaintiff
HELD – indemnity costs not warranted because it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff not to accept the offers – no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Stuart Klees v M101 Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 182
Category: Costs Parties: Stuart John Klees – Plaintiff
M101 Holdings Pty Ltd – First Defendant
Australian Income Solutions Pty Ltd trading as Mayfair Wealth Partners Pty Ltd – Second Defendant
Quattro Capital Group Pty Ltd – Third Defendant
Devin O’Keefe – Fourth DefendantRepresentation: Solicitors:
Plaintiff – Self Represented
KHQ Lawyers – First and Second Defendants
Mills Oakley – Third Defendant
Piper Alderman – Fourth Defendant
File Number(s): 2020/181254
JUDGMENT
-
HIS HONOUR: I gave judgment in this matter on 5 March 2021; Stuart Klees v M101 Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 182. The plaintiff failed.
-
With respects to costs I made the following order:
Provisionally, I order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the third defendant and the fourth defendant. This order will solidify 7 days after publication of this judgment, unless by then any party seeking some different costs order has notified the other parties and my associate in writing that some other order is sought, identifying such an order and providing a brief statement of the grounds why it is sought. If such notice is received, the provisional order will not take effect and arrangements will be made for the determination of costs.
-
On 9 March 2021, the plaintiff removed his solicitor.
-
The third defendant did not give notice that any other order was sought. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. The plaintiff is to pay the third defendant’s costs.
-
On behalf of the fourth defendant I received written submissions and he relies upon the affidavit of his solicitor Gordon Thomas Grieve sworn 10 March 2021.
-
I have received written communication from the plaintiff and some documentary material relied on by him.
-
I will deal with costs on the papers.
-
The fourth defendant moves for indemnity costs, either from 24 August 2020 when he made a Calderbank offer[1] that the proceedings be discontinued with no order as to costs, each party bear their own costs of the proceedings and the parties enter into a deed of release, or from 23 December 2020 when he made a second Calderbank offer that he pay the plaintiff $60,000, the proceedings be discontinued, each party bear their own costs and the parties enter into a deed of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Stuart Klees v M101 Holdings Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWSC 271
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the circumstances surrounding the settlement offers, including the terms proposed and the stage of the litigation at which they were made. It found that the plaintiff had not acted unreasonably in declining the settlement offers. The court emphasised that indemnity costs are not automatically awarded simply because a party does not accept a settlement offer. Instead, the court must consider whether the refusal was unreasonable in the given circumstances. In this case, the court concluded that the plaintiff's decision not to accept the offers was not unreasonable, and therefore, indemnity costs were not warranted. The court underscored that this decision was not based on any issue of principle but rather on the specific facts and context of the case.
As a result of the court's reasoning, it decided not to order indemnity costs against the plaintiff. The court's decision was a measured one, reflecting the need for careful consideration of each party's conduct and the specific context of the litigation. The court did not make any further orders beyond this decision. The outcome underscores the importance of assessing the reasonableness of a party's actions in the context of settlement offers and the potential consequences of such decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.