Fresh Express Australia Pty Ltd v Larridren Pty Limited [2002] FCA 1640

Fresh Express Australia Pty Ltd v Larridren Pty Limited [2002] FCA 1640

Indemnity costs were not warranted because the offer was made after virtually all of the evidence had been adduced, when little remained except submissions, so acceptance would have done little to avoid litigation and justice did not require the applicant to be punished for not accepting it. Costs were therefore ordered on a party/party basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Concerning Indemnity Costs Following a Calderbank Offer / Post Judgment Costs Determination After Reasons for Judgment in the Proceedings
Outcome
Indemnity costs refused; the applicant was ordered to pay the second and third respondents' costs on a party/party basis.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'party/party Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'discretion as to Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'party/party Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'discretion as to 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 Application Concerning Indemnity Costs Following a Calderbank Offer / Post Judgment Costs Determination After Reasons for Judgment in the Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the second and third respondents' costs of the October proceedings on an indemnity basis because it did not accept a settlement offer dated 13 August 2002." 'Whether, having regard to the late timing and terms of the offer, it was unreasonable for the applicant to reject it.']

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were not warranted because the offer was made after virtually all of the evidence had been adduced, when little remained except submissions, so acceptance would have done little to avoid litigation and justice did not require the applicant to be punished for not accepting it. Costs were therefore ordered on a party/party basis.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs refused; the applicant was ordered to pay the second and third respondents' costs on a party/party basis.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the second and third respondents' costs on a party/party basis."]