NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Cong Xu v Austino Property Development Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1559 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 25 October 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Darke J Decision: 1. The plaintiff's application for indemnity costs is refused. 2. Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the application. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - costs - departing from the general rule - order for costs on indemnity basis - offers of compromise - Calderbank offer - whether genuine offer of compromise - whether unreasonable for defendant not to accept offer of compromise - where offer required entry of consent orders in similar terms to Statement of Claim in exchange for payment of $10,000 - offer contained minimal element of compromise - not unreasonable for defendant not to accept offer Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 ss 14, 100 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 20.26, 36.16 Cases Cited: AT v Commissioner of Police (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 337 Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93; [1975] 3 All ER 333 Colgate Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 Cong Xu v Austino Development Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1177 Hancock v Arnold; Dodd v Arnold (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 19 Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No 2) [2005] VSCA 298; 13 VR 435 Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 Miwa Pty Ltd v Siantan Properties Pte Ltd [2011] NSWCA 344 Regency Media Pty Ltd v AAV Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 368 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Refrigerated Roadways Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 336 Short v Crawley (No 45) [2013] NSWSC 1541 Singh v Singh (No 2) [2004] NSWSC 225 Vieira v O'Shea (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 121 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cong Xu (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant) Austino Property Development Pty Ltd (Defendant/Cross-Claimant) Representation: Counsel: J Darams (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant) E White (Defendant/Cross-Claimant) Solicitors: James Tuite & Associates Lawyers (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant) Legal Point Lawyers (Defendant/Cross-Claimant) File Number(s): 2013/80287 Publication restriction: None
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