Alexsander Bajic v Phillip Paraskevopoulos

In the case of Alexsander Bajic versus Phillip Paraskevopoulos, the matter was before the court following a dispute between the two parties. The dispute arose from a claim by the plaintiff, Alexsander Bajic, against the defendant, Phillip Paraskevopoulos, for damages and other relief related to a personal injury sustained in an incident. The court was tasked with determining the costs associated with the proceedings, specifically focusing on indemnity costs in light of the defendant's withdrawal of his proceedings. This issue was influenced by the exchange of a Calderbank letter, which is a common practice in Australian litigation where a party offers to settle on terms that include a costs agreement.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the defendant, Phillip Paraskevopoulos, was entitled to indemnity costs after he withdrew his cross-claim against the plaintiff. The court had to consider the principles governing indemnity costs and the effect of the Calderbank letter on the costs order. The court also needed to examine the circumstances under which the cross-claim was withdrawn and whether the terms of the Calderbank letter should influence the outcome regarding indemnity costs.

The court found that the defendant's withdrawal of his cross-claim, which occurred after the exchange of a Calderbank letter, did not entitle him to indemnity costs. The court reasoned that the Calderbank letter, which included a proposal for costs on an indemnity basis, did not constitute a binding offer but was rather an attempt to negotiate the terms of settlement. Given that the defendant voluntarily withdrew his claim, which resulted in the plaintiff achieving a significant victory, the court determined that the defendant should not be awarded indemnity costs. The court emphasised that indemnity costs are not automatically awarded upon withdrawal of proceedings but depend on the specific circumstances of each case.

The court ordered that the defendant, Phillip Paraskevopoulos, pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the standard basis. This decision underscored the principle that indemnity costs are not to be granted lightly and must be supported by the specific circumstances of the case, particularly where a Calderbank letter is involved. The court's ruling provided clarity on the application of indemnity costs in the context of withdrawn claims and the influence of Calderbank letters on costs orders.