Dais Studio Pty Ltd v Bullet Creative Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 42

Dais Studio Pty Ltd v Bullet Creative Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 42

The applicants' rejection of the respondent's Calderbank offers was not unreasonable in the circumstances existing before trial, and therefore an order for indemnity costs is not justified. The record did not show that the action against the respondent was bound to fail or that the applicants acted unreasonably in rejecting settlement offers, given the information available to them at relevant times.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Indemnity Costs Following Judgment / Post Judgment Determination of Costs
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'settlement Offers']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'calderbank Offers' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Indemnity Costs Following Judgment / Post Judgment Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' rejection of the respondent's Calderbank offers was unreasonable so as to warrant indemnity costs" 'Whether the proceeding against the second respondent was bound to fail so as to justify indemnity costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' rejection of the respondent's Calderbank offers was not unreasonable in the circumstances existing before trial, and therefore an order for indemnity costs is not justified. The record did not show that the action against the respondent was bound to fail or that the applicants acted unreasonably in rejecting settlement offers, given the information available to them at relevant times.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['No order as to costs incurred by any party in connection with the preparation and filing of written submissions on the question of costs subsequent to judgment on 20 December 2007.' "Applicants to pay the second respondent's costs of the proceeding, save as aforesaid."]