ACN 070 037 599 P/L & Anor v Larvik P/L & Anor [No 2]

The plaintiffs, ACN 070 037 599 P/L and another, initiated legal proceedings against Larvik P/L and another, resulting in a complex dispute that was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The first plaintiff made a joint settlement offer with the second plaintiff, which was declined by the defendants. The second plaintiff subsequently withdrew her claim before the trial, while the first plaintiff proceeded to trial and obtained a judgment for damages and interest in excess of the amount proposed in the joint settlement offer. The court was tasked with determining whether the first plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs under Rule 360 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the first plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs following the withdrawal of the second plaintiff's claim and the subsequent judgment in favour of the first plaintiff. The court had to consider the circumstances under which costs could be awarded on an indemnity basis, particularly in light of the joint settlement offer and the abandonment of the second plaintiff's action. Additionally, the court needed to decide the scope of costs to which the defendants were entitled after the second plaintiff withdrew her claim.

The court held that the first plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs for the proceedings. It found that the joint settlement offer did not preclude the first plaintiff from seeking costs on an indemnity basis, as the offer was made in the context of a joint claim and did not bind the parties to any specific cost consequences if one plaintiff withdrew. The court also determined that the defendants were entitled to costs for the period up to the withdrawal of the second plaintiff's claim, but these costs were to be limited to those specifically attributable to her claim and assessed on the standard basis. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the first plaintiff, awarding them judgment for damages and interest and granting indemnity costs against the defendants.

The court made specific orders to reflect its findings. Firstly, judgment was entered in favour of the first plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $315,890.82, representing damages and interest calculated to 2 June 2008. Secondly, the defendants were ordered to pay the first plaintiff's costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be assessed on the indemnity basis. Thirdly, by consent, there was judgment in favour of the defendants on the second plaintiff's claim. Lastly, the second plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding incurred up to 19 March 2008, including reserved costs, limited to those relevant solely to her claim against the defendants, to be assessed on the standard basis.