NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: PACANOWSKI v SIMON WAKERMAN & ASSOCIATES (NO 2) [2010] NSWCA 40 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): On the papers
JUDGMENT DATE: 17 March 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Basten JA at 1
DECISION: (1) Dismiss the application to vary the orders made on 10 November 2009. (2) There is no order as to the costs of this application.
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – costs – indemnity costs – two separate offers of settlement – whether constituted a compromise – whether rejection of offer reasonable – whether award for indemnity costs justified – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Pt 20, Div 4
LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 20.26Pt 20, Div 4
CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings
CASES CITED: Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 WLR 586 Pacanowski v Simon Wakerman & Associates [2009] NSWCA 402
David Pacanowski – First Applicant Maxine Pacanowski – Second Applicant PARTIES: Simon Wakerman & Associates Pty Ltd – First Respondent Simon Wakerman – Second Respondent Angelo Natoli – Third Respondent Natoli Constructions Pty Ltd – Fourth Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40255/09
S D Robb QC – Applicants COUNSEL: S Torrington – First and Second Respondents B Dooley SC/I Judd – Third and Fourth Respondents
Charles G Roth – Applicants SOLICITORS: Blackstone Waterhouse – First and Second Respondents George Mallos, Lawyer – Third and Fourth Respondents
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