Legal Research
Cases
Tekin v Stratford (No 2)

Tekin v Stratford (No 2)

Case [2025] NSWSC 902 12 August 2025

Costs

Limitation Periods

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Tekin v Stratford & Ors (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 902
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 12 August 2025
Decision date: 12 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Faulkner J
Decision:
(a) Order (e) made on 29 May 2025 be vacated.
(b) The Defendants pay the Plaintiff’s costs on an ordinary basis up to 13 May 2024 and the Plaintiff bear his own costs thereafter.
(c) The Plaintiff pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis from 14 May 2024.

Catchwords:
COSTS – Offer of Compromise for $700,000 plus costs not accepted by plaintiff – plaintiff obtains judgment for $698,000 plus costs, including interest after offer not accepted – costs order made under UCPR 42.15 – no point of principle

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 20.26, 42.1, 42.15, 42.16
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56

Cases Cited:
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Chalik v Chalik [2025] NSWCA 136
Daynes v I-MED Central Queensland Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 150
Health Care Corporation Pty Ltd t/as Wollongong Private Hospital v Cleary (No. 2) [2024] NSWCA 94
Hillier v Sheather (1995) 36 NSWLR 414
Langdon v Carnival PLC [2024] NSWCA 168
Leach v The Nominal Defendant [2014] NSWCA 391
Lorenzato v Burwood Council [2021] NSWSC 266
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Regency Media Pty Ltd v AAV Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 368
Tekin v Stratford & Ors [2025] NSWSC 541
Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) v Takacs (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 172
Whitney v Dream Developments Pty Ltd (2013) 84 NSWLR 311; [2013] NSWCA 188

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Celal Tekin (Plaintiff)
Phillip Norman Stratford (First Defendant)
Denis Gordon Low (Second Defendant)
Kelvin Reginald Low (Third Defendant)
Gary Patrick Doherty (Fourth Defendant)
Patrick Anthony Doherty (Fifth Defendant)
Representation: Corporate Legal (Plaintiff)
Gilchrist Connell (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2020/00343395

JUDGMENT

On 29 May 2025 I handed down judgment in Tekin v Stratford & Ors [2025] NSWSC 541 (the principal judgment) by which Mr Tekin obtained the following orders against the Firm:

judgment for damages of $300,000;

interest in accordance with s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 on that judgment sum from 17 July 2015;

in addition, an order that the Firm pay equitable compensation of $127,398.17;

an order that the Firm pay compound interest on the equitable compensation calculated at yearly rests from 17 July 2015 at the rates prescribed for the purposes of the Civil Liability Act 2005;

an order that the [Firm] pay [Mr Tekin’s] costs; and

either party wishing to seek an alternative or additional order in relation to costs has liberty to apply in the next 14 days.

The details of the case are set out in that judgment and are not repeated here.
There is no dispute between the parties about the…

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 Tekin v Stratford (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Tekin v Stratford (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 902
Case: [2025] NSWSC 902
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tekin v Stratford (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Tekin, and the defendant, Stratford, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Tekin sought damages for personal injuries suffered in a car accident, while Stratford denied liability. The case reached a stage where Stratford made an offer of compromise to Tekin for $700,000 plus costs, which Tekin did not accept. Subsequently, Tekin obtained a judgment for $698,000 plus costs, including interest accruing after Stratford's offer, but before the judgment. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs incurred by Tekin after the offer of compromise should be awarded under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rule 42.15.

The court considered the principles governing offers of compromise and the applicable provisions of the UCPR. The court noted that Tekin had not succeeded in recovering the full amount of the offer and that the offer was made without an admission of liability. Under rule 42.15, the court has discretion to order that the costs incurred after an offer of compromise be paid by the party who rejected the offer, provided there is no point of principle involved. The court found that there was no point of principle in this case that would prevent the award of costs incurred after the offer. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order that Tekin recover the costs incurred after the offer, up to the amount of the judgment.

Given the court's reasoning, the outcome was that Tekin was entitled to recover the costs incurred after the offer of compromise, up to the amount of the judgment. The court's order was made under the authority of UCPR rule 42.15, and the decision did not involve any significant legal principle that would alter the usual application of the rule. The final orders included the award of costs incurred by Tekin after the offer of compromise, reflecting the court's decision that there was no point of principle preventing such an award.

Orders