Central Innovation Pty Ltd v Garner (No 5) [2022] FCA 502

Central Innovation Pty Ltd v Garner (No 5) [2022] FCA 502

The applicants' formal offer of compromise was valid under r 25.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and took effect at 11.00 am on 30 July 2019. The applicants obtained a verdict judgment considerably more favourable than the offer, and Mr Garner made no serious attempt to show why r 25.14 should not operate according to its terms. The Calderbank offer was also sufficiently detailed and reasonably capable of acceptance, providing an alternative basis for indemnity costs. The unanswered claim for post-judgment costs was reasonable. Accordingly, Mr Garner was ordered to pay the applicants' costs in the total sum of $1,552,751.14.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs / Post Judgment Determination of Indemnity Costs Following Lump Sum Costs Assessment by Judicial Registrar
Outcome
The first respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs in the sum of $1,552,751.14.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'lump Sum Costs Assessment' 'party and Party Costs' 'post Judgment Costs']
['costs' 'employment and Industrial Relations' 'corporations'] ['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'lump Sum Costs Assessment' 'party and Party Costs' 'post Judgment Costs']

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 / Post Judgment Determination of Indemnity Costs Following Lump Sum Costs Assessment by Judicial Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first respondent should pay indemnity costs by reason of the applicants' Calderbank offer dated 7 June 2019 and offer of compromise dated 26 July 2019." 'Whether the offers were incapable of being assessed when open for acceptance.' 'Whether the applicants should recover costs incurred after the verdict judgment on an indemnity basis without further costs assessment.' "Whether the Court should revisit the Judicial Registrar's assessment concerning proportionality and costs said to be caused by the applicants or other parties."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' formal offer of compromise was valid under r 25.01(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and took effect at 11.00 am on 30 July 2019. The applicants obtained a verdict judgment considerably more favourable than the offer, and Mr Garner made no serious attempt to show why r 25.14 should not operate according to its terms. The Calderbank offer was also sufficiently detailed and reasonably capable of acceptance, providing an alternative basis for indemnity costs. The unanswered claim for post-judgment costs was reasonable. Accordingly, Mr Garner was ordered to pay the applicants' costs in the total sum of $1,552,751.14.

Court Disposition

The first respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs in the sum of $1,552,751.14.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent pay the applicants' costs in the sum of $1,552,751.14."]