Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 MAY 2014

The utility of offers of compromise in Class 3 compensation proceedings

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Contributor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth is Australia’s leading independent law firm. We provide exceptional legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Corrs Chambers Westgarth

The respondent may still not be entitled to proceedings costs on an indemnity basis from the day after the offer date.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

On 13 March 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court dismissed a costs application made by the acquiring authority, Sydney Water Corporation (SWC), following the Court's determination of the substantive Class 3 proceedings: Tempe Recreation Reserve Trust v Sydney Water Corporation (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 23. In particular, the costs application sought an order that the dispossessed landowner, Tempe Recreation Reserve Trust, pay SWC's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis from the day after SWC's offer of compromise.

Despite the fact that SWC's offer of compromise had the "hallmarks of compliance" with rule 20.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) and was a genuine offer, the Court held that SWC was not entitled to its costs on an indemnity basis under rule 42.15 because the Court's determination was not "less favourable" to the Trust than the terms of the offer. If the Court was in error and rule 42.15 was in fact engaged, the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from