Shane Mitchell-Calvert v Yahoo Inc No. 2 [2001] NSWIRComm 162

Shane Mitchell-Calvert v Yahoo Inc No. 2 [2001] NSWIRComm 162

Although the respondent's Calderbank offer substantially reflected the Court's eventual findings, the offer was open for only four working days. In the context of the respondent's previous formal offer under the Rules and the 28-day standard in r 168(3), that time limit was unreasonable. The Court was not satisfied that the applicant's refusal to accept the offer was unreasonable. The respondent's application for indemnity costs, and its alternative application for party/party costs, were rejected. Justice required the respondent to pay the applicant's costs up to and including 27 February 2001 on a party/party basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Costs Application / Ex Tempore Judgment No 2 on Costs After Judgment
Outcome
Respondent's applications for indemnity costs and for party/party costs were rejected; applicant awarded party/party costs up to and including 27 February 2001.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'costs Discretion' 'party/party Costs']
['industrial Relations' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer of Compromise' 'costs Discretion' 'party/party 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

Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996; Costs Application / Ex Tempore Judgment No 2 on Costs After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the respondent indemnity costs from 27 February 2001 because of the respondent's Calderbank offer." "Whether the applicant's refusal to accept the respondent's offer was unreasonable." 'Whether the applicant should instead receive costs on a party/party basis, and for what period.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent's Calderbank offer substantially reflected the Court's eventual findings, the offer was open for only four working days. In the context of the respondent's previous formal offer under the Rules and the 28-day standard in r 168(3), that time limit was unreasonable. The Court was not satisfied that the applicant's refusal to accept the offer was unreasonable. The respondent's application for indemnity costs, and its alternative application for party/party costs, were rejected. Justice required the respondent to pay the applicant's costs up to and including 27 February 2001 on a party/party basis.

Court Disposition

Respondent's applications for indemnity costs and for party/party costs were rejected; applicant awarded party/party costs up to and including 27 February 2001.

Orders

  • ["The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs up to and including 27 February 2001 on a party/party basis." 'The order is to read as Order No. 7 in the general orders of Judgment [2001] NSWIRComm 136 delivered on 22 June 2001.' 'Under the slip rule, the words "as indexed" are inserted after $62,200 in paragraphs 48 and...