NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v Williams (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1419 Hearing dates: 12 September 2022 Date of orders: 12 September 2022 Decision date: 19 October 2022 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Slattery J Decision: Existing orders for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings up to the date of hearing on the ordinary basis are not disturbed. No order made for the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on the indemnity basis for any period. It was reasonable for the plaintiff not to accept the defendant's Calderbank offer of 3 August 2020. Defendant's motion dismissed. Defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion. Catchwords: COSTS – indemnity costs – Calderbank letter – plaintiff successful in proceedings brought as an adult son claimant for further provision from the estate of his deceased father under Succession Act 2006, Chapter 3 – the Court's orders provide for $625,000 to be paid by the estate to the plaintiff over a period of 2.5 years – the defendant's pre-trial offers of settlement offered to the plaintiff to settle the proceedings upon terms involving the transfer of property which the defendant claims was worth $1,150,000, but subject to liabilities of $300,000 and $25,000 and accordingly claimed to be more valuable than the sum of money which the plaintiff had received under the Court's orders – whether the offer qualified as a Calderbank offer – whether the offer was no less favourable to the plaintiff than the orders made by the Court - whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to decline or accept the offer. Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006, Chapter 3 Cases Cited: Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Chapple v Wilcox [2014] NSWCA 392 Evans Shire Council v Richardson (No. 2) [2006] NSWCA 61 Miwa Pty Ltd v Siantan Properties Pte Ltd (No. 2) [2011] NSWCA 344 Salmon v Osmond [2015] NSWCA 42 Williams v Williams [2022] NSWSC 711 Category: Consequential orders Parties: Plaintiff: Mr Richard Noel Williams Defendant: Mr Timothy George Williams Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr N. Kirby Defendant: Mr M. Meek SC
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate