Vagg v McPhee (No 2)

Case [2013] NSWCA 126


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vagg v McPhee (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 126
Hearing dates:On the papers
Decision date: 23 May 2013
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Ward JA at [12];
Tobias AJA at [25]
Decision:

Order that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal to be assessed -

(a) up to and including 5 July 2012, on the ordinary basis, and

(b) from 5 July 2012, on the indemnity basis.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: COSTS - indemnity costs - whether appeal hopeless - whether offer of compromise valid
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedural Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1991) 22 NSWLR 1
Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 12
Bon Appetit Family Restaurant Pty Ltd v Mongey [2009] NSWCA 14
Carr-Glynn v Frearsons [1999] Ch 326
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 202; 81 ALR 397
Hancock v Arnold (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 19
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72
Regency Media Pty Ltd v AAV Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 368
Robb Evans & Associates v European Bank Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 170
Vagg v McPhee [2013] NSWCA 29
Vieira v O'Shea (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 121
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Margaret Doreen Vagg (First Appellant)
Benjamin John Vagg (Second Appellant)
Julia Lillian Vagg (Third Appellant)
Cecilia Anne Vagg (Fourth Appellant)
James Gregory Vagg (Fifth Appellant)
Paul McPhee (First Respondent)
Trevor Cork (Second Respondent)
David Dunkley (Third Respondent)
Steven Nicholson (Fourth Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
E W Young (Appellants)
J C Kelly SC (Respondents)
Solicitors:
Turner Freeman (Appellants)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Respondents)
File Number(s):CA 2012/13018
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
[2011] NSWSC 1584
Date of Decision:
2011-12-19 00:00:00
Before:
Schmidt J
File Number(s):
2009/297399 (formerly 20072 of 2009)

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: On 22 February 2013 the Court dismissed the appeal in this proceeding: Vagg v McPhee [2013] NSWCA 29. Ordinarily, the appellants would have been ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings, to be assessed on the ordinary basis. However, on 27 February the respondents sought an order for costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

  1. The basis for the proposed order was twofold. First, it was said that the appeal was hopeless and dismissal inevitable. Secondly, reliance was placed upon an offer of compromise dated 4 July 2012.

  1. The first ground should be rejected. I agree with Tobias AJA that the case was not one in which it could…

Continue reading Vagg v McPhee (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vagg v McPhee (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 126
Case
[2013] NSWCA 126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Vagg v McPhee (No 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application for indemnity costs of an appeal. The dispute concerned the validity of an offer of compromise made by the respondents.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appeal was so demonstrably lacking in merit that it should be characterised as "hopeless," thereby justifying an award of indemnity costs from a particular date. This required the Court to assess the prospects of success of the appeal at the time the offer of compromise was made and subsequently.

The Court reasoned that an appeal would be considered hopeless if it had no reasonable prospect of success. Applying this principle, the Court found that the appeal, when viewed from the perspective of the offer of compromise, was indeed hopeless. Consequently, the Court ordered that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. These costs were to be assessed on the ordinary basis up to and including 5 July 2012, and on the indemnity basis from 5 July 2012 onwards.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal to be assessed -

(a) up to and including 5 July 2012, on the ordinary basis, and

(b) from 5 July 2012, on the indemnity basis.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.