Nemeth v Prynew Piling v Prynew [2009] NSWSC 511

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Nemeth v Prynew Piling v Prynew [2009] NSWSC 511 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S) : 09/04/09 (Final submissions 27/05/09)

JUDGMENT DATE : 10 June 2009

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Macready AsJ at 1

CATCHWORDS : Costs. Calderbank offers by two of three defendants. Consideration of timing, form and whether it was reasonable to have rejected offers. Held it was reasonable.

Ferdinand Nemeth v Prynew Pty Limited & Ors PARTIES : Piling Contractors (Qld) Pty Limited v Prynew Pty Ltimited

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 55037/2003; 55019/2003

Mr SM Kettle for Piling COUNSEL : Mr D Robertson for Nemeth Mr J Simpkins QC for Prynew and Tsu Mr PL Dodson for QBE

Thompson Cooper Lawyers for Piling SOLICITORS : Avendra Singh & Co for Prynew and Tsu Gadens for Nemeth Curwood & Partners for QBE

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION CONSTRUCTION AND TECHNOLOGY LIST

Associate Justice Macready

Wednesday 10 June 2009

55037/2003 Ferdinand Nemeth v Prynew Pty Limited, Peter Tsu and Piling Contractors (Qld) Pty Ltd and Virginia Nemeth

55019/2003 Piling Contractors (Qld) Pty Limited v Prynew Pty Limited JUDGMENT ON COSTS 1 His Honour: I have heard argument on the costs' orders to be made in this mater. The matters remaining to be considered appear to be the following.

1. Whether GST should be included in the amounts for judgment for the plaintiffs against the first three defendants.

2. Costs as between the plaintiffs (Mr and Mrs Nemeth, including Mrs Nemeth up until she changed from being a plaintiff to a defendant) and the first and second defendants. The following sub issues arise: