Astram Financial Services Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 1166

The existence of a rolled-up settlement offer and a simple comparison between that offer and the outcome does not warrant an order for indemnity costs against any applicant; the offer did not sufficiently cater for individual liabilities and was open for an unreasonably short period, lapsing before mediation. No persuasive case for indemnity costs was made.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 28 October 2010
Procedural Posture: Application and Cross Claim / Post Trial Costs Determination
Outcome: The respondent/cross-claimant's further application for indemnity costs is refused. No order as to the costs of that application.
Legal Topics: ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'settlement Offers' 'mediation']

['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'settlement Offers' 'mediation']

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

Procedural Posture

Application and Cross Claim / Post Trial Costs Determination

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether indemnity costs should be awarded to the respondent based on a settlement offer' 'Whether the settlement offer justified indemnity costs against individual applicants']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

The respondent/cross-claimant's further application for indemnity costs is refused. No order as to the costs of that application.

Orders

["The respondent/cross-claimant's further application for indemnity costs be refused." 'There be no order as to the costs of that application.']