NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Rail Corp v Fluor Australia [2009] NSWSC 414
HEARING DATE(S) : 17 February 2009 JURISDICTION : Equity Technology & Construction List
JUDGMENT OF : McDougall J at 1
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 17 February 2009
DECISION : See paragraphs [52] to [54] of the judgment.
CATCHWORDS : JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Interest on judgment – calculation of "appropriate settlement sum" where offer of compromise has been made – whether third party offers can be used conjunctively to invoke statutory limitation on interest. - COSTS – Costs of interlocutory application – whether costs should be apportioned where successful issues split between parties. - COSTS – Interest on costs – factors to be considered where determining which party has had the benefit of funds during proceedings.
LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Procedure Act 2005
CATEGORY : Consequential orders
Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd v Salmon [2007] NSWCA 322 CASES CITED : Joseph Lahoud & Anor v Victor Lahoud v Ors [2006] NSWSC 126 Unity Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd v Rocco Pezzano Pty Ltd (1998) 192 CLR 603 Waters v P C Henderson (Australia) Pty Ltd (6 July 1994, unreported; BC 9404952)
Rail Corporation of New South Wales (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Fluor Australia Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Alpcross Pty Limited (Second Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 55015/07
COUNSEL : M R Elliott (Plaintiff) E C Muston (Defendant)
Blake Dawson Lawyers (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Wotton & Kearney Lawyers (First Defendant) Goldrick Farrell Mullan (Second Defendant)
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