Den Hoedt & Anor v Barwick

(2006) 46 MVR 30; [2006] WASCA 196

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Offers of compromise
4. › Joint offer by defendants severally liable
5. › Whether O 24A r 9 applies where defendants not jointly or jointly and severally liable
6. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 24A r 9
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › General discretionary power
4. › Whether trial judge should have taken defendants' offer into account in exercise of general discretionary power
5. › Whether failure to raise general discretionary power at trial precludes raising it on appeal
6. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37(1)
7. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1
1. Damages
2. › Personal injuries
3. › Non-pecuniary loss
4. › Statutory cap
5. › Meaning of 'a most extreme case'
6. › Whether expression refers to a class of cases or a single hypothetical worst case
7. › Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA), s 3C(2), (3), (4)
1. Appeal
2. › Assessment of damages
3. › Findings of fact
4. › Whether findings reasonably open on the evidence
5. › Causation of personal injuries
6. › Reliability of plaintiff as historian

Quick Take

Where defendants are severally but not jointly or jointly and severally liable, a joint offer of compromise in a single amount does not engage O 24A r 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA). Such an offer may still be relevant to the general discretionary power as to costs, but only if that power is invoked at trial. The expression 'a most extreme case' in s 3C(3) of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA) refers to a class of cases, not a single hypothetical worst case.