NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: SINGH v HARIKA (NO.2) [2005] NSWCA 212
HEARING DATE(S): 20/04/2005
JUDGMENT DATE: 23 June 2005
JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Bryson JA at 2; Campbell AJA at 14
DECISION: see [13]
CATCHWORDS: COSTS - offer of compromise in District Court - defendant offered sum greater than judgment in District Court - formal offer under DCR Pt.39A - defendant recovered costs from date of offer as in Pt.39A r.25 - an appeal, no offer was made and plaintiff as appellant recovered higher award but still below offer - appellant recovered costs of appeal.
District Court Rules Pt.39A r.25 LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970; s.76 Supreme Court Rules Pt.52A r.22
Baresic v. Slingshot Holdings Pty Ltd (No.2) [2005] NSWCA 160 at [19]; Fotheringham v. Fotheringham (No.2) [1999] NSWCA 21, 46 NSWLR 194 CASES CITED: South Sydney Council v. Morris (No.3) [2001] NSWCA 200 Moore v. Woodforth (No.2) [2003] NSWCA 46 Brymount Pty Ltd v. Cummins [2005] NSWCA 69
Roselyne Singh - Appellant PARTIES: Amardeep Singh Harika - Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40808/2004
Mr D. Cassidy QC with Mr M. Rollinson - Appellant COUNSEL: Mr P.R. Garling - Respondent
Newman & Associates, Sydney - Appellant SOLICITORS: Sparke Helmore, Sydney - Respondent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2159/00
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Murrell DCJ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL 40808 OF 2004
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