Claimant Wins Indemnity Costs in Dust Diseases Case
📌 In brief
In a Dust Diseases Tribunal case, the claimant won the right to indemnity costs after successfully arguing that the defendant's refusal to accept an offer of compromise was unreasonable. The court ruled in favour of the claimant, awarding them costs on an indemnity basis.
⚖️ Legal holding
A plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs if they obtain a judgment more favourable than the terms of an offer of compromise, unless the tribunal finds an exceptional case and substantial injustice.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully argued for indemnity costs based on an offer of compromise, but the court rejected the argument for indemnity costs based on a Calderbank offer.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The court found that the defendant had sufficient material at the time of the expiry of the Offer of Compromise to make an informed decision as to whether or not the plaintiff could establish the inference sought.
- The court concluded that the additional material served after the expiry of the Offer of Compromise did not change the nature of the plaintiff's case and was merely 'more of the same'.
- The court determined that there was no obligation on the plaintiff to serve any material before the trial commenced, and thus the defendant could not claim substantial injustice due to the timing of evidence service.
- The court found that even if all evidence had been served with the Offer of Compromise, the defendant would not have accepted the offer, as they maintained their position that the plaintiff had not proved exposure to asbestos.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The defendant's argument that the Tribunal should exercise its power under cl 89(2) of the DDT Regulation to order 'otherwise in an exceptional case and for the avoidance of substantial injustice' was rejected.
- The defendant's submission that the case was exceptional and that substantial injustice would result from ordering indemnity costs was not accepted by the court.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the defendant should pay the claimant's costs on an indemnity basis or on a party and party basis.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant, finding that the defendant's refusal to accept the offer of compromise was unreasonable and that the case did not warrant an exceptional case or substantial injustice.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant's argument that the defendant's refusal to accept the offer of compromise was unreasonable and that the case did not warrant an exceptional case or substantial injustice.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to indemnity costs if they can show that the defendant's refusal to accept an offer of compromise was unreasonable.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents included the offer of compromise and the defendant's refusal to accept it.