Coshott v Learoyd [1999] FCA 276

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Coshott v Learoyd [1999] FCA 276

TRADE PRACTICES – Alleged misleading conduct by architect in making representations to a development consent authority regarding the likely environmental effects of a proposed building – Whether shadow diagrams submitted to development consent authority were misleading – Whether height of external wall misstated – Whether damage sustained by the applicants, adjoining landowners. NEGLIGENCE – Alleged negligence by architect in making representations to development consent authority, especially in relation to shadow diagrams – Alleged negligence by development consent authority in considering proposed building – Whether architect and/or the development consent authority owed a duty of care to adjoining owners – Whether damage sustained. COSTS – Application for indemnity costs – Pre-trial offer by respondents pursuant to Order 23 of Rules to compromise proceeding on the basis of a payment of $500 plus costs to date – Applicants failed to accept offer and failed at trial – Whether circumstances in which indemnity costs are awarded are limited to cases where a party's conduct is unreasonable – Significance of use of Order 23 – Desirable form of "indemnity" costs order. Trade Practices Act 1974, s52 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s43 Federal Court Rules, Order 23

ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT and LJILJANA COSHOTT v RODERICK IAN LEAROYD, SALWEEN PTY LTD and WOOLLAHRA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NG779 of 1997 WILCOX J SYDNEY 23 MARCH 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NG779 of 1997

BETWEEN: ROBERT GILBERT COSHOTT and LJILJANA COSHOTT

Applicant

AND: RODERICK IAN LEAROYD

First Respondent

SALWEEN PTY LTD

Second Respondent