No Comments

HOW MUCH DID THAT COST?

By Anica Cunanan, Solicitor at Matthews Folbigg in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group

With any debt collection service, such as a debt collection agency or a debt collection lawyer, the costs of debt collection can be significant. So the question we are always asked is ‘Can the debtor be held liable for my debt collection costs?’

As we tell our valued debt collection clients, there are at least a couple of different answers to this question. But critically, debt collection clients can take steps to get a better outcome in relation to their debt collection costs! [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

OFFER UP!

By Anica Cunanan, Solicitor at Matthews Folbigg in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group

Calderbank offers are based on the principles outlined in the English case of Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333. Whether you are the offeror or the offeree, it is important to understand the effect of these offers.

Calderbank Offer: What is it?

A Calderbank offer is designed to put the offeror in a position to apply to the court for an indemnity costs order, in circumstances when the offeror receives a better outcome than the amount that was offered. Should an indemnity costs order be granted, the unsuccessful party will pay a higher proportion of the successful party’s costs. Emphasis is placed on the word “higher”. In many civil jurisdictions (but by no means all), “costs follow the event,” and so the unsuccessful party might expect to have to pay some of the successful party’s costs. If ‘indemnity’ costs are awarded, the amount payable is higher. Somewhat  counterintuitively however, the amount is almost never “all” the successful party’s costs, for various reasons. However, in many cases the difference between recovering some costs, and recovering a much higher proportion of those costs, can make an enormous difference. And by making a Calderbank offer, a party will improve the chances of recovering a higher proportion of costs. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Beyond the Usual Argy Bargy – How Repeated Amendments to Class 1 Appeal Application Can Lead to General Costs Order

In the recent case of Statewide Planning Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council (No. 3) [2018] NSWLEC 109 (Statewide Planning), the Land and Environment Court (LEC) heard the Council’s Notice of Motion (NOM) for costs against the developer who had amended plans annexed to the Class 1 Appeal 11 times in the course of a Class 1 development appeal proceeding that lasted almost two years. The judge presiding the hearing for the NOM, Justice Sheahan, found: –

  • the conduct of the developer had gone beyond ‘the usual argy bargy’ between a party in Class 1 Appeal proceedings;
  • the developer should pay the Council’s legal costs in respect of the whole proceedings, in addition to any costs thrown away by reason of making those amendments; and
  • the Council was permitted to bring the NOM even though it was filed outside of the deadline permitted by the LEC’s Practice Note – Class 1 Development Appeals.

 Background

In Statewide Planning, the developer commenced the Class 1 appeal on 21 September 2015 after its development application was deemed refused by Council. Due to multiple and serious deficiencies with the development application, the developer amended the application 11 times before the hearing, which led to a domino effect of delayed expert’s reports and adjournments of proceedings. Worse, the developer had failed to seek leave from the Court before amending the application on multiple occasions. [...]  READ MORE →