Technology Leasing Ltd v Lennmar Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1216

Technology Leasing Ltd v Lennmar Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1216

Although TLL succeeded on isolated issues, the real dispute concerned Lennmar's claims arising from misleading and deceptive conduct and TLL's involvement in that conduct. TLL was aware from mediation of the Partons' allegations, called no evidence to rebut them, and should have known that Lennmar's claims would likely be proved. The litigation should not have proceeded beyond that point, so TLL should pay Lennmar's costs. However, Lennmar's Calderbank offer did not state reasons explaining why TLL's application would fail, so TLL's refusal of it was not unreasonable and indemnity costs were not warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Federal Court Proceedings / After Principal Judgment, With Costs Reserved
Outcome
TLL was ordered to pay the respondents' costs on the usual basis.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'apportionment of Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'unconscionable Conduct']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following the Event' 'apportionment of Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'unconscionable Conduct']

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 Determination in Federal Court Proceedings / After Principal Judgment, With Costs Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the mixed success of the applicant and respondents justified departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.' "Whether TLL should receive indemnity costs from 29 September 2011 because Lennmar rejected TLL's Calderbank offer." 'Whether Lennmar should receive indemnity costs after its Calderbank offer dated 15 April 2011 or 16 April 2011.' "Whether TLL's rejection of Lennmar's Calderbank offer was imprudent or unreasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although TLL succeeded on isolated issues, the real dispute concerned Lennmar's claims arising from misleading and deceptive conduct and TLL's involvement in that conduct. TLL was aware from mediation of the Partons' allegations, called no evidence to rebut them, and should have known that Lennmar's claims would likely be proved. The litigation should not have proceeded beyond that point, so TLL should pay Lennmar's costs. However, Lennmar's Calderbank offer did not state reasons explaining why TLL's application would fail, so TLL's refusal of it was not unreasonable and indemnity costs were not warranted.

Court Disposition

TLL was ordered to pay the respondents' costs on the usual basis.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant/Cross-Respondent pay the costs of the Respondents/Cross-Claimants.']