Tuggeranong Town Centre Pty Ltd v Brenda Hungerford Pty Limited (No 3)

The case before the court involved a dispute between Tuggeranong Town Centre Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Brenda Hungerford Pty Limited, the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the defendant's breach of a lease agreement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The court was required to determine the appropriate assessment of costs, including the application of prescribed scales, the impact of a rejected Calderbank offer, and the allocation of costs for the proceedings.

The primary legal issues centred around the interpretation of certain provisions in the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) and the Leases (Commercial and Retail) Act 2001 (ACT). Specifically, the court needed to decide whether rule 1725(2)(c) applied to the assessment of the plaintiff's costs and how the principles of relative success and the rejection of a Calderbank offer influenced the overall cost allocation. The court also had to consider the implications of the transferred proceedings on the prescribed scale of costs applicable to the case.

The court found that the prescribed scale of costs applied to the assessment of the plaintiff's costs, rejecting the defendant's argument that the costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis. The court considered the relative success of the parties on the issues raised and noted the defendant's rejection of a Calderbank offer, which influenced the overall cost assessment. The court also addressed the costs associated with the adjournments and determined that the defendant should bear certain costs thrown away due to the proceedings. Ultimately, the court ordered that the third party pay half of the defendant's costs for the Third Party Claim, and that the defendant pay specific costs incurred by the plaintiff due to the adjournments.

The final orders of the court declared that rule 1725(2)(c) of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) applied to the plaintiff's costs. The third party was ordered to pay one half of the defendant's costs for the Third Party Claim, and the defendant was required to pay the costs thrown away by the plaintiff due to the adjournments on specific dates. No orders were made regarding other reserved costs.