Mannall v Howard (No 3) [2019] ACTSC 260 — Application For Special Costs Order — Barrister AI
← Back
Mannall v Howard (No 3)
[2019] ACTSC 260
Supreme Court of the ACT
26 September 2019
Good law / bad law (Silk subscription)
Add to Notebook
0 highlights
0 notes
Copy Citation
More
Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.
See how it works
Interrogate
Catchwords
Costs
›
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL COSTS ORDER
›
Second defendant ran argument that had been previously unsuccessful in other proceedings
›
leave granted to file an amended defence
›
argument that was ultimately successful only arose in the amended defence
›
Calderbank offers did not relate to the ultimate arguments advanced at hearing
Costs
›
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL COSTS ORDER
›
Where insurer denied liability leading the insured to defend a claim
›
claim for contribution or indemnity under r 319 of Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT)
›
claim for indemnity arising under an insurer’s obligation to indemnify in s 21 of the Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT)
›
costs to be paid on an indemnity basis
Case Details
Citation
[2019] ACTSC 260
Court
ACTSC
Jurisdiction
Australian Capital Territory
Decision Date
26 September 2019
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members.
[2019] ACTSC 260
5 authorities it relies on
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2019
Relies on
5
2019
Mannall v Howard (No 2)
ACTSC 113
2019
Mannall v Howard
ACTSC 112
2014
Haider v Lane and Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance; Lane v Haider and Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance
ACTSC 205
2011
Gray v Sirtex Medical Limited
FCAFC 40
and 1 more after sign-in
Create free account
Already have an account?
Sign in
See how it works
