AAI Limited trading as Vero Insurance v Technology Swiss Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 183

AAI Limited trading as Vero Insurance v Technology Swiss Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCAFC 183

No order as to costs should be made because both appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, the issues were indivisible, and there was no clear reason or authority for departing from the usual course. The offer of compromise relied upon by TS was ambiguous and not made solely in the capacity of a respondent, so did not trigger r 25.14 consequences. It was not unreasonable for Vero not to accept the offer.

Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: AAI Limited trading as Vero Insurance; Respondent/cross Appellant: Technology Swiss Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal (costs) / Judgment on Costs After Dismissal of Both Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
No order as to costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.
Legal Topics
Costs, Offer of Compromise, Recoupment Rights, Indemnity Costs, Settlement Offers
Commercial Law Insurance Law Costs Offer of Compromise Recoupment Rights Indemnity Costs Settlement Offers

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAI Limited trading as Vero Insurance

Appellant/cross Respondent

Technology Swiss Pty Ltd

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal (costs) / Judgment on Costs After Dismissal of Both Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there should be an order as to costs of the appeal and cross-appeal
  2. 2 Effect of an offer of compromise made by cross-appellant/respondent under Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 25.14(1)-(2)
  3. 3 Whether the offer was reasonable and/or ambiguous

Ratio Decidendi

No order as to costs should be made because both appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, the issues were indivisible, and there was no clear reason or authority for departing from the usual course. The offer of compromise relied upon by TS was ambiguous and not made solely in the capacity of a respondent, so did not trigger r 25.14 consequences. It was not unreasonable for Vero not to accept the offer.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

Orders

  • There be no order as to costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.