Legal Research
Cases
Sweeten v Haggerty (No 2)

Sweeten v Haggerty (No 2)

Case [2025] NSWSC 897 12 August 2025

Costs

Limitation Periods

Interlocutory Orders

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sweeten v Haggerty (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 897
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 12 August 2025
Decision date: 12 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1)   Set aside order 2 made on 27 June 2025 and in lieu thereof order:
(a)   the plaintiffs pay the Trustees costs of the application for leave to appeal:
(i)   incurred on or before 7 April 2025 on the ordinary basis; and
(ii)   from 8 April 2025 on an indemnity basis.
(2) Order pursuant to s 98(4) of the Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW) that the plaintiffs pay the Trustees costs of the application for leave to appeal, as ordered on 27 June 2025, in the gross sum of $50,000.
(3) Order pursuant to s 98(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) that the plaintiffs pay the Trustees costs of the Notice of Motion, filed 10 July 2025, in the gross sum of $8,000.

Catchwords:
COSTS — special costs order — offer of compromise by defendants not accepted — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 20.26
COSTS — costs of appeal — consequence of offer of compromise made prior to proceedings — indemnity costs — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 42.15A
COSTS — costs of appeal and notice of motion — ordered on a gross sum basis — Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98(4)(c)

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Auspine Ltd v Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd (1999) 93 FCR 1
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119
Beau Timothy John Hartnett trading as Hartnett Lawyers v Anthony Robert Bell as Executor of the Estate of the late Mabel Dawn Deakin-Bell (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 311
Chalik v Chalik [2025] NSWCA 136
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Gabrielle v Abood (No 4) [2023] NSWCA 100
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Hancock v Rinehart (Lump sum costs) [2015] NSWSC 1640
Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 734 at 743; [2002] NSWCA 213
Kostov v Zhang (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 279
Leach v Nominal Defendant (QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd) (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 391
Penson v Titan National Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] NSWCA 121
Snowy Mountains Grammar School Ltd v Adventurer AWD Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 53
Sweeten v Haggerty [2025] NSWSC 673
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 99

Category: Costs
Parties: Benjamin Michael Sweeten (First Plaintiff)
Varvara Angelique Sellies (Second Plaintiff)
Margaret Haggerty (First Defendant)
Patricia Anne Hume (Second Defendant)
Francis William Johnson (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (Plaintiffs)
M Castle (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiffs)
Fahey Rosenblum Lawyers & Mediators (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2025/00094379
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Review Panel under s 82 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)

Date of Decision:

13…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sweeten v Haggerty (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Sweeten v Haggerty (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 897
Case: [2025] NSWSC 897
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sweeten v Haggerty (No 2), the dispute involved the applicants seeking a special costs order under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rule 20.26 in relation to an offer of compromise that the defendants had made but which the applicants did not accept. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the applicants were entitled to a special costs order due to the defendants' offer of compromise that was not accepted, and if so, the quantum of those costs. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the costs of the appeal and the notice of motion should be ordered on a gross sum basis in accordance with the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) section 98(4)(c).

The court held that the applicants were entitled to a special costs order because the defendants' offer of compromise had not been accepted, as per rule 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The court further found that the applicants were also entitled to indemnity costs for the costs of the appeal and the notice of motion, as per rule 42.15A of the same rules. The court ordered the costs on a gross sum basis, in line with section 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

The final orders included a special costs order in favour of the applicants for the costs incurred in relation to the offer of compromise, as well as indemnity costs for the appeal and notice of motion, all of which were to be calculated on a gross sum basis.

Orders