NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Davis v Swift (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 137 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 21 May 2015 Before: Meagher JA at [1]; Leeming JA at [32]; Adamson J at [33] Decision: 1.The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings in the District Court up to and including 26 April 2013 assessed on the ordinary basis. 2.The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in the District Court after 26 April 2013 assessed on the ordinary basis. 3.The respondent pay 50% of the appellant's costs of the appeal. Catchwords: COSTS – Offer of Compromise – compliance with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 20.26 (as in force in November 2012) – whether Offer sufficiently indicated that it was inclusive of "interim payments" made under ss 83 and 84A of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
COSTS – Calderbank Letter – whether a genuine offer of compromise – whether pre-trial Calderbank offer justified departure from the general rule that appeal costs are primarily determined by the issues in and outcomes of the appeal Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 3(1), 98, 101, Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 83, 84A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 20.26, 42.1, 42.2, 51.49 Cases Cited: Baresic v Slingshot Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 160 Bathurst Regional Council as Trustee for the Bathurst City Council Crown Reserves Reserve Trusts v Thompson (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 420 Cheng v Geussens (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 254 Commonwealth of Australia v Gretton [2008] NSWCA 117 Davis v Swift [2014] NSWCA 458; 69 MVR 375 Grace v Thomas Street Café Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 72 Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 Marshall v Megna (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 456 Regency Media Pty Ltd v AAV Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 368 Taheri v Vitek (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 344 Whitney v Dream Developments Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 188; 84 NSWLR 311 Category: Costs Parties: Carolyn Davis (Appellant) Deborah Swift (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: R McIlwaine SC with R E Quickenden (Appellant) P R Cummings SC (Respondent)
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