McLennan v Meyer Vandenberg (No 2)

[2020] ACTCA 15

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Calderbank offers
4. › Whether rejection of offer unreasonable
5. › Objective assessment of party's prospects at date of offer
6. › Professional negligence claim with weak evidence on quantum
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Commencement in wrong court
4. › Whether claim within Magistrates Court jurisdiction
5. › Whether inclusion of equitable compensation in Statement of Claim insulates against costs rule
6. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1725
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Discretion to depart from costs rule
4. › Whether special circumstances required
5. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1725(3)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs of appeal
4. › Appellant successful on only one ground
5. › Retention of ground as costs 'insurance policy'
6. › Whether inconsistent with overriding purpose provision
7. › Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT), s 5A

Quick Take

A misconceived claim for equitable relief included in a Statement of Claim, bearing no relationship to the pleaded causes of action, does not take proceedings outside the scope of r 1725 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). Rule 1725(3) provides an unconstrained discretion and does not require 'special circumstances'. Retaining a ground of appeal as a costs 'insurance policy' by refusing to accept a reasonable offer to resolve that ground is inconsistent with s 5A of the Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) and will not result in a favourable costs order.