Walter Construction v Walker Corporation [2001] NSWSC 359

Walter Construction v Walker Corporation [2001] NSWSC 359

Indemnity costs were refused because CCG's Calderbank offer was only capable of joint acceptance by the Walker defendants, the offer appeared intended to secure enforceable obligations against each of them, the litigation involved an extraordinarily complex and uncertain set of issues with a $21,000,000 swing, the seven-day acceptance period was inordinately inadequate, and the offer was essentially an initial step toward mediation rather than one whose rejection was unreasonable or imprudent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Indemnity Costs Based on a Calderbank Offer / Post Judgment Costs Application
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs rejected.
Legal Topics
['calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers to Several Defendants' 'reasonableness of Rejecting Settlement Offers' 'joint Acceptance' 'time for Acceptance']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'construction Litigation'] ['calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs' 'offers to Several Defendants' 'reasonableness of Rejecting Settlement Offers' 'joint Acceptance' 'time for Acceptance']

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 for Indemnity Costs Based on a Calderbank Offer / Post Judgment Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether CCG should receive indemnity costs from 3 December 1999 because the Walker defendants did not accept its Calderbank offer.' 'Whether the Calderbank offer was deficient because it was only capable of joint acceptance by several defendants.' 'Whether seven days was an adequate period for acceptance having regard to the complexity, uncertainty and amount in dispute.' 'Whether the Walker defendants acted unreasonably or imprudently in rejecting the offer.']

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were refused because CCG's Calderbank offer was only capable of joint acceptance by the Walker defendants, the offer appeared intended to secure enforceable obligations against each of them, the litigation involved an extraordinarily complex and uncertain set of issues with a $21,000,000 swing, the seven-day acceptance period was inordinately inadequate, and the offer was essentially an initial step toward mediation rather than one whose rejection was unreasonable or imprudent.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs rejected.

Orders

  • ['No further order as to costs of the proceedings.' "The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs of the hearing of 27 April 2001."]