Hill v Tooth & Co Ltd [1998] FCA 1805

Hill v Tooth & Co Ltd [1998] FCA 1805

Hill’s offer was sufficiently clear to include interest, making the judgment ‘not less favourable’ than the offer. Technical non-compliance should not defeat indemnity costs in circumstances where the respondent could reasonably clarify matters. For Roberts, the rejection of his Calderbank letter was imprudent as Hill should have known he had little chance of success given the facts known since 1991, justifying indemnity costs after the rejection date.

Parties
First Applicant: Dennis Ronald Hill; Second Applicant: Janice Barbara Hill; First Respondent: Tooth & Co Ltd; Second Respondent: B.Y.E.P. Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Ron Roberts
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination Following Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded as specified; orders made accordingly.
Legal Topics
Costs, Offers of Compromise, Indemnity Costs, Calderbank Letters
Civil Procedure Costs Offers of Compromise Indemnity Costs Calderbank Letters

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Ronald Hill

First Applicant

Janice Barbara Hill

Second Applicant

Tooth & Co Ltd

First Respondent

B.Y.E.P. Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Ron Roberts

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to indemnity costs after an offer of compromise under Order 23 of the Federal Court Rules
  2. 2 Entitlement to indemnity costs following rejection of a Calderbank letter offer

Ratio Decidendi

Hill’s offer was sufficiently clear to include interest, making the judgment ‘not less favourable’ than the offer. Technical non-compliance should not defeat indemnity costs in circumstances where the respondent could reasonably clarify matters. For Roberts, the rejection of his Calderbank letter was imprudent as Hill should have known he had little chance of success given the facts known since 1991, justifying indemnity costs after the rejection date.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded as specified; orders made accordingly.

Orders

  • The first respondent pay the applicants' costs on a party and party basis up to 14 April 1997 and on an indemnity basis from 15 April 1997.
  • The applicants pay the third respondent's costs on a party and party basis up to 22 November 1994 and on an indemnity basis from 23 November 1994.