Costs Awarded on Indemnity Basis After Rejected Calderbank Offer
⚖️ Legal holding
A defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis if the plaintiff achieves a better result than offered in a Calderbank offer.
📖 Technical summary
The court awarded costs to the claimant on an indemnity basis after a Calderbank offer was rejected.
📚 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 plaintiff achieved a better outcome at trial than what was offered in its Calderbank offer.
- The Calderbank offer alerted the defendant to the difficulties it faced regarding the issues on which the plaintiff ultimately won.
- The "fatal problem" identified in the Calderbank offer was essentially the basis for the court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The defendant's argument that the plaintiff's pleading of the issue differed from its presentation at trial was not accepted as a reason to reject the Calderbank offer.
- The defendant's argument that the allegation of its request for novation was not foreshadowed in the Calderbank offer was not accepted.
- The plaintiff's application for a gross sum costs order was refused because the case was not unusual or complex from a costs assessment perspective.
- The plaintiff's application for a gross sum costs order was rejected because granting it would transfer the costs assessment function from assessors to judges.
- The defendant's request for costs related to the unsuccessful adjournment application was rejected because the application itself was refused.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the costs to be paid after the claimant achieved a better result than the defendant's Calderbank offer suggested.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the claimant achieved a better result than the defendant's Calderbank offer suggested.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, achieving a better result than a Calderbank offer suggests may lead to costs being awarded on an indemnity basis.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.