Advanced National Services Pty Ltd v Daintree Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2)

Advanced National Services Pty Ltd sued Daintree Contractors Pty Ltd for unpaid invoices and interest, as well as for costs incurred in the proceedings. The matter was resolved by way of a consent judgment, however, the sum awarded was less than what had been offered by the defendant in settlement. Advanced National sought an order for costs pursuant to section 60 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Act 2005, arguing that the defendant's offer was not genuine and that the circumstances warranted a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event. The defendant opposed the application on the basis that the plaintiff's rejection of the offer was unreasonable.

The primary issue for the court was whether the plaintiff's rejection of the defendant's offer was unreasonable, and whether the circumstances warranted a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event. The court noted that the plaintiff had rejected the defendant's offer on the basis that it was not genuine, and that the defendant had not provided the necessary documentation to support the offer. The court also noted that the plaintiff had been successful in recovering the full amount of the debt, and that the defendant had not provided any evidence to support its contention that the plaintiff's rejection was unreasonable. The court held that the plaintiff's rejection was not unreasonable, and that the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to costs from the defendant to the extent of the costs incurred up until the date of the defendant's offer, and that the defendant was entitled to costs from the plaintiff to the extent of the costs incurred from the date of the defendant's offer until the date of the consent judgment. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any costs in relation to the defendant's offer, as the offer was not genuine and the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event. The court made an order for costs in accordance with the findings.

The court's decision in this case provides guidance on the exercise of discretion in relation to costs in proceedings where a defendant makes a Calderbank offer. The court held that a plaintiff's rejection of a Calderbank offer is not necessarily unreasonable, and that the circumstances must warrant a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event. The court also held that a defendant's offer must be genuine and supported by appropriate documentation, and that a plaintiff is not entitled to costs in relation to an offer that is not genuine or that is made in circumstances that do not warrant a departure from the usual order. The decision is likely to be of interest to practitioners in the area of costs and procedure.