Cosmetic Suppliers Pty Ltd and Another v Great Scott International Pty Ltd and Another (No 2) [2008] NSWIRComm 15

Cosmetic Suppliers Pty Ltd and Another v Great Scott International Pty Ltd and Another (No 2) [2008] NSWIRComm 15

The 26 April 2007 letter was a Calderbank type offer, not an offer under the Industrial Relations Commissions Rules 1996. The offer was genuine, open for a reasonable period, and the respondents obtained a result more favourable than the offer when the appeal was dismissed. The appellants failed to provide any adequate formal response or explanation, and their objections concerning appeal costs, the banker's undertaking, mitigation, and arguable grounds of appeal did not establish that rejecting the offer was reasonable. The respondents were therefore entitled to the costs orders sought, including indemnity costs from 27 April 2007 onwards.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Appeal Concerning Unfair Contract Proceedings / Notice of Motion After Leave to Appeal Was Granted and the Appeal Was Dismissed
Outcome
Respondents' notice of motion for costs granted.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'reasonableness of Rejection of Settlement Offer' 'costs Discretion']
['costs' 'industrial Relations' 'unfair Contracts' 'appeals'] ['calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'reasonableness of Rejection of Settlement Offer' 'costs Discretion']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Appeal Concerning Unfair Contract Proceedings / Notice of Motion After Leave to Appeal Was Granted and the Appeal Was Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' 26 April 2007 settlement offer was an offer under the Industrial Relations Commissions Rules 1996 or a Calderbank type offer." "Whether the appellants acted reasonably in rejecting the respondents' Calderbank offer." 'Whether the respondents should receive party/party costs to 26 April 2007 and indemnity costs from 27 April 2007 onwards.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 26 April 2007 letter was a Calderbank type offer, not an offer under the Industrial Relations Commissions Rules 1996. The offer was genuine, open for a reasonable period, and the respondents obtained a result more favourable than the offer when the appeal was dismissed. The appellants failed to provide any adequate formal response or explanation, and their objections concerning appeal costs, the banker's undertaking, mitigation, and arguable grounds of appeal did not establish that rejecting the offer was reasonable. The respondents were therefore entitled to the costs orders sought, including indemnity costs from 27 April 2007 onwards.

Court Disposition

Respondents' notice of motion for costs granted.

Orders

  • ['The costs ordered pursuant to order 3 made by the Full Bench on 16 October 2007 be paid on the following basis:' "The Appellants to jointly or severally pay the Respondents' costs on a party/party basis from 1 December 2006 to 26 April 2007, as agreed or as assessed." "The Appellants to jointly or severally pay...