|Jojeni Investments Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (No 2) (NSWCA) - costs - offers of compromise - indemnity costs refused
|Winky Pop v Mobil (VSC) - damages - petroleum leak - basis for measurement of damages - plaintiffs entitled to sum for costs incurred in investigating leak
|Design Joinery & Doors Pty Ltd v IPower Pty Ltd (No 2) (SASC) - costs - judgment for plaintiffs reduced on defendant’s appeal - mixed success - conduct - costs orders
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Jojeni Investments Pty Ltd v Mosman Municipal Council (No 2)  NSWCA 208
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Macfarlan, Gleeson & Leeming JJA
Costs - offer of compromise - Court allowed appeal in proceedings - appellant sought order for indemnity costs on basis of offers of compromise - rr20.26, 42.14 & 51.47 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) - held: offers complied with Rules - Council not shown to be unreasonable in refusing offers of compromise in circumstances where subject matter of proceeding was declaratory relief, point was of general importance, acceptance of offer would have deprived Court of benefit of argument and Council was only appropriate contradictor - special costs order refused.
|Winky Pop v Mobil  VSC 348
Supreme Court of Victoria
Damages - negligence - nuisance - claim arising from petroleum leak (Mobil leak) which created plume of petroleum hydrocarbon in groundwater underneath plaintiffs’ land - plaintiffs claimed against Mobil in negligence, nuisance, and for compensation under s151 Pipelines Act 2005 (Vic) - plaintiffs also claimed against State in negligence - Mobil admitted it contaminated plaintiffs’ land and conceded responsibility for leak and clean up - appropriate form of relief - held: proper basis for measurement of damages was diminution in value of plaintiffs’ land - plaintiffs did not establish they had or but for Mobil leak would have had opportunity to develop plaintiffs’ land residentially - plaintiffs had not lost opportunity to develop plaintiffs’ land because of Mobil leak - opportunity to develop plaintiffs’ land residentially had no real prospect of being successfully pursued - Mobil leak would not prevent or impair plaintiffs’ ability to develop land for residential purposes - plaintiffs are entitled to be paid sum of $104,273.93 with interest by Mobil in relation to their costs incurred in investigating the Mobil leak.
|Design Joinery & Doors Pty Ltd v IPower Pty Ltd (No 2) SASC 102
Supreme Court of South Australia
Costs - Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiffs - judgment reduced on appeal - determination of liability in contract was reversed but plaintiffs’ alternative restitution cause of action successful - defendant sought order for costs of appeal except hearing on restitution, and order for costs or part thereof of action in Magistrate’s Court - plaintiffs sought costs of appeal and costs of action in Magistrate’s Court except for application to reopen - held: plaintiffs to pay defendant’s costs thrown away on appeal due their failure to file notice of alternative contention - no order as to costs of appeal - order that plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of application to reopen on Supreme Court Scale not disturbed - no order as to costs of action.