Webber v Comcare (No. 2) [2018] NSWDDT 12

Webber v Comcare (No. 2) [2018] NSWDDT 12

Although the plaintiff's $950,000 offer was a genuine compromise, the defendant's rejection of it was not unreasonable because the offer was communicated on the same day as detailed evidence relevant to quantification of damages was supplied and the case involved a difficult and novel choice of law issue with no guiding authority. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to indemnity costs after 28 November 2018.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Further Costs Application After Judgment
Outcome
The plaintiff's application for indemnity costs was dismissed, and each party was ordered to pay his or its own costs of the further costs application made on 14 December 2018.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'unreasonable Rejection of Settlement Offer' 'choice of Law']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'unreasonable Rejection of Settlement Offer' 'choice of Law']

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 / Further Costs Application After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should receive indemnity costs after 28 November 2018 because the defendant rejected the plaintiff's Calderbank offer of $950,000 plus costs and disbursements." 'Whether sufficient time was allowed for consideration of the Calderbank offer, having regard to the service of detailed evidence concerning damages for loss of capacity to provide gratuitous domestic services.' 'Whether rejection of the offer was unreasonable in circumstances involving a complex and novel choice of law issue.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff's $950,000 offer was a genuine compromise, the defendant's rejection of it was not unreasonable because the offer was communicated on the same day as detailed evidence relevant to quantification of damages was supplied and the case involved a difficult and novel choice of law issue with no guiding authority. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to indemnity costs after 28 November 2018.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's application for indemnity costs was dismissed, and each party was ordered to pay his or its own costs of the further costs application made on 14 December 2018.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs." 'Order each party to pay his or its own costs of the further costs application made on 14 December 2018.']