AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 116

AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 116

The Court found that CGU's refusal of AMPFP's Calderbank offer did not expose it to an indemnity costs order, as the offer was inherently uncertain, lacking evidentiary foundation, and not unreasonably refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Appeal Costs Order
Outcome
Appellant's application for indemnity costs dismissed; costs to respondent
Legal Topics
['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer']

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

Appeal / Post Appeal Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether AMPFP is entitled to indemnity costs in respect of CGU's cross-appeal based on a Calderbank offer"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that CGU's refusal of AMPFP's Calderbank offer did not expose it to an indemnity costs order, as the offer was inherently uncertain, lacking evidentiary foundation, and not unreasonably refused.

Court Disposition

Appellant's application for indemnity costs dismissed; costs to respondent

Orders

  • ["The appellant/cross-respondent's application for an order for indemnity costs be dismissed." "The appellant/cross-respondent is to pay the respondent/cross-appellant's costs of the application."]