Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] ACTCA 30

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd
Citation:	[2025] ACTCA 30
Hearing Date:	11 November 2024
Decision Date:	31 July 2025
Before:	Baker and Taylor JJ, Ainslie-Wallace AJ
Decision:	(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to be agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Costs – whether plaintiff’s offer of compromise clearly identified proposed orders necessary for disposal of claim – whether Primary Judge erred in finding offer non-compliant with r 1002 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – where offer did not state whether it could be accepted by all defendants jointly or by one or more alone – offer open to two possible constructions – offeror’s intention capable of being discerned by inference – inferring intention does not cure deficiency – offer ambiguous and non-compliant with the Rules – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules ACT (2006) rr 1002, 1003 Uniform Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 20.27
Cases Cited:	Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Farmer v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 53 Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd [2023] ACTSC 390 Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 28
Parties:	Benjamin John Tattersall ( Appellant) Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd ( First Respondent) Zavindi Pty Ltd t/as Goulburn Roller Doors (Second Respondent) Nathan Flanagan (Third Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel A Muller SC w/ B Jullienne ( Appellant) M Nesbeth ( First Respondent) B Kelleher SC w/ J Moffett (Second and Third Respondent)
Solicitors Blumers Personal Injury Lawyers ( Appellant) Barry Nilsson Law (First Respondent) Mills Oakley (Second and Third Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 3 of 2024
Decision Under Appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Mossop J Date of Decision: 14 February 2024 Case Title: Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) Citation: [2024] ACTSC 28 Court File Number: SC 47 of 2023

BAKER J:

1․The factual background to these proceedings is comprehensively set out in the judgment of Ainslie-Wallace AJ. I agree with her Honour that the appeal should be dismissed, and that the appellant should pay the respondents’ costs, as agreed or assessed.
2․As observed by Ainslie-Wallace AJ, Mossop J (the Primary Judge) identified two possible constructions of the Offer of Compromise, namely:
(i)That it was an offer made to all three defendants jointly, which could only be accepted by all three acting jointly; or
(ii)That it was an offer made to any one of the defendants to accept, whether or not the other defendants accepted the offer.

See Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 28 (Primary Judgment) at [28].
3․The Primary Judge concluded that the first construction was “probably intended” by the appellant: Primary Judgment at [31]. His Honour queried whether such an offer would have complied with r 1002 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the Rules): Primary Judgment at [32], citing King v Yurisich (No…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tattersall v Dormakaba Australia 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ACTCA 30
Decision Date: 31 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the interpretation of an offer of compromise made by the plaintiff, Tattersall, to the defendant, Dormakaba Australia Pty Ltd, in proceedings before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central dispute revolved around whether the offer of compromise complied with Rule 1002 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), which governs the requirements for such offers.

The primary legal issue before the appellate court was whether the Primary Judge had erred in finding that the plaintiff's offer of compromise was non-compliant with Rule 1002. Specifically, the court had to determine if the offer clearly identified the proposed orders necessary for the disposal of the claim, particularly in relation to its acceptance by multiple defendants.

The court reasoned that the offer was ambiguous because it did not specify whether it could be accepted by all defendants jointly or by one or more of them individually. While the offeror's intention might have been capable of being discerned by inference, the court held that inferring intention did not cure the deficiency in the offer's wording. Consequently, the offer was found to be ambiguous and therefore non-compliant with the requirements of the Rules.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to be agreed or assessed.

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.