Stead v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 65

Stead v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 65

Because the proceeding was heard by a judge alone, the Court should enter judgment only, not a verdict. Dr Stead's judgment for $296,500 and the practical removal of the First Internet Matter, the Second Internet Matter and an important part of the Third Matter was, in substance, more favourable than the First Stead Offer of $190,000 plus removal of matters and costs. Rule 25.14(3) therefore entitled Dr Stead to party and party costs before 11am on the second business day after the offer was served and indemnity costs thereafter; in any event, rejection of that offer was unreasonable in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding; Practice and Procedure; Costs / Orders and Costs Determination Following Primary Judgment
Outcome
Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondents, with indemnity costs from 11am on 22 April 2020 and otherwise party and party costs.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'verdict and Judgment' 'judge Alone Trial' 'assessment Whether Judgment More Favourable Than Offer']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs' 'verdict and Judgment' 'judge Alone Trial' 'assessment Whether Judgment More Favourable Than 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

Defamation Proceeding; Practice and Procedure; Costs / Orders and Costs Determination Following Primary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the order should be expressed as verdict and judgment or as judgment only in a judge alone trial.' 'Whether the applicant obtained a judgment more favourable than the First Stead Offer for the purposes of r 25.14(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether rejection of the First Stead Offer was unreasonable so as to justify indemnity costs under the general costs discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proceeding was heard by a judge alone, the Court should enter judgment only, not a verdict. Dr Stead's judgment for $296,500 and the practical removal of the First Internet Matter, the Second Internet Matter and an important part of the Third Matter was, in substance, more favourable than the First Stead Offer of $190,000 plus removal of matters and costs. Rule 25.14(3) therefore entitled Dr Stead to party and party costs before 11am on the second business day after the offer was served and indemnity costs thereafter; in any event, rejection of that offer was unreasonable in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the applicant against the respondents, with indemnity costs from 11am on 22 April 2020 and otherwise party and party costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment be entered for the applicant against the respondents in the sum of $296,500.' "The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding (including any costs the subject of previous costs orders or any reserved costs) from 11am on 22 April 2020 on an indemnity basis, and otherwise on a party and party...