Williams v Harrison - [2024] TASSC 18

[2024] TASSC 18

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Williams v Harrison [2024] TASSC 18
PARTIES:	WILLIAMS, Howard Robert as Executor of the Estate of Joyce Evans
v
HARRISON, Elwin
HARRISON, Angela
FILE NO:	246/2021
DELIVERED ON:	12 April 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:	18 March 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Costs – Offers of compromise, payments into court and settlements – Offer of compromise or offer to settle or consent to judgment pursuant to rules – Generally – Tasmanian rules of no application to wholly successful defendant.

Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r 280
Aust Dig Procedure [1581]

Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Costs – Offers of compromise, payments into court and settlements – Informal offers and Calderbank letters – Unreasonable refusal of offer – Application by successful defendant for indemnity costs from refusal of offer – Refusal of offer not unreasonable at time of refusal.

Aust Dig Procedure [1591]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: F C Brimfield
Defendants: N Terracall

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Bleyer Lawyers Pty Ltd
Defendants: Terracall and Associates

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 18
Number of paragraphs:	14

Serial No 18/2024 File No 246/2021

HOWARD ROBERT WILLIAMS AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOYCE EVANS v ELWIN HARRISON and ANGELA HARRISON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J
12 April 2024

1 This decision concerns the costs of an unsuccessful action. On 30 November 2023 I published reasons for dismissing an action brought by the plaintiff, in his capacity as executor of the estate of the late Joyce Evans: Williams v Harrison [2023] TASSC 47. In the action the plaintiff sought to enforce what he claimed to be a contract he entered into, as executor, with the defendants to settle a financial dispute between the defendants and Mrs Evans during her life. The claimed agreement would have required the defendants to transfer the property at Unit 4, 369A Hobart Road, Youngtown to the estate on certain terms. Although I was satisfied that the defendants intended to be contractually bound substantially in the terms alleged by the plaintiff, the action failed because at the time of the agreement the defendants were not aware Mrs Evans had died, and thought they were dealing with her and not the plaintiff, to whom they had no intention to bind themselves. There was a small counterclaim for accrued rent paid by a tenant between the date of Mrs Evans' death and determination of the action. The counterclaim succeeded, but the parties agreed that such order depended on, and followed, the result of the action.
2 The plaintiff agrees that he should pay the defendants' costs of the action. However the defendants seek special costs orders. They apply for costs on a solicitor and own client basis between 10 September 2021 and 24 January 2024, and on an indemnity basis from 25 January 2024. The submission that there should be special…

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 Williams v Harrison

Details

AGLC: Williams v Harrison [2024] TASSC 18
Case: [2024] TASSC 18
Decision Date: 12 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v Harrison involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Williams, and the defendant, Harrison. Williams sought damages for breach of contract, alleging that Harrison failed to fulfil certain contractual obligations. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant, who was successful in defending against the plaintiff's claims, was liable for the costs incurred by the plaintiff in relation to offers of compromise and settlements made during the proceedings.

The court had to determine whether the provisions of the Tasmanian rules regarding offers of compromise or settlements applied to a wholly successful defendant. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should be liable for costs related to these offers, despite the defendant's complete success in the proceedings. The court considered the relevant rules and statutes, ultimately concluding that the Tasmanian rules did not apply to a defendant who was wholly successful in defending against all claims.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the interpretation of the relevant rules and statutes, which explicitly stated that they were not applicable to a defendant who was successful in defending against all claims. The court held that since the defendant was wholly successful, the provisions regarding offers of compromise and settlements did not impose any liability for costs on the defendant. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, finding that they were not liable for the costs associated with the offers of compromise and settlements.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Harrison, was not liable for the costs incurred by the plaintiff, Williams, in relation to offers of compromise and settlements made during the proceedings. The court's decision clarified the scope of the Tasmanian rules and affirmed that they do not apply to a defendant who is wholly successful in defending against all claims.

Orders