The Good Living Company Pty Limited ATF the Warren Duncan Trust No 3 v Kingsmede Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 130

The Good Living Company Pty Limited ATF the Warren Duncan Trust No 3 v Kingsmede Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 130

Although the applicants did not achieve a better result by the judgment than they would have obtained under the 19 January Offer, the Court was not satisfied that rejection of either the Calderbank offer or the Pt 25 offer was unreasonable when assessed at the time of the offers. The offers were made at a very early stage, before evidence was filed, with only 14 days for acceptance and no explanation beyond the defence as to why the applicants' claim would fail. The issues raised required detailed consideration, the applicants were entitled at that stage to maintain that the proceeding had reasonable prospects, and the later walk away offer did not involve any real element of compromise...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations; Regulator and Consumer Protection; Costs / Post Judgment Costs Determination on the Papers
Outcome
Indemnity costs refused; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs on a party/party basis.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer to Compromise Under Pt 25 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)' 'party/party Costs' 'reasonableness of Rejection of Settlement Offers' 'walk Away Offer']
['costs' 'commercial and Corporations' 'regulator and Consumer Protection'] ['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer to Compromise Under Pt 25 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)' 'party/party Costs' 'reasonableness of Rejection of Settlement Offers' 'walk Away 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

Commercial and Corporations; Regulator and Consumer Protection; Costs / Post Judgment Costs Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay any part of the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis because they rejected the 19 January 2018 Calderbank offer." "Whether the applicants should pay any part of the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis because they rejected the 27 February 2018 offer to compromise under Pt 25 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)." 'Whether the applicants achieved a better result by the judgment than the 19 January Offer.' 'Whether rejection of the offers was unreasonable in the circumstances existing when the offers were made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants did not achieve a better result by the judgment than they would have obtained under the 19 January Offer, the Court was not satisfied that rejection of either the Calderbank offer or the Pt 25 offer was unreasonable when assessed at the time of the offers. The offers were made at a very early stage, before evidence was filed, with only 14 days for acceptance and no explanation beyond the defence as to why the applicants' claim would fail. The issues raised required detailed consideration, the applicants were entitled at that stage to maintain that the proceeding had reasonable prospects, and the later walk away offer did not involve any real element of compromise...

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs refused; applicants ordered to pay respondents' costs on a party/party basis.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding on a party/party basis as agreed or taxed."]