Australian Capital Territory v BJM Canberra Pty Ltd
[2020] ACTCA 14
•28 June 2019
Case Title: 2020-04-14 BJM Canberra Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) [2020] ACTCA 14
Citation: [2020] ACTCA 14
Hearing Date: On the papers
Decision Date: 14 April 2020
Before: Burns, Mossop and Charlesworth JJ
Decision: 1. The Application in Proceedings dated 3 March 2020 is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to the costs of that application.
Catchwords:
.
COSTS – APPLICATION FOR COSTS – Respondent seeks costs on an indemnity basis or a solicitor and client basis – respondent made an offer of compromise and a Calderbank offer to the appellant – offers were rejected and the appeal was subsequently dismissed – the offer of compromise was not in accordance with r 1002(2) – whether it was unreasonable for the appellant to reject the Calderbank offer – it was not – the appeal involved a one-dimensional construction issue of a single clause – costs application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1002, 5001(2)
Cases Cited: BJM Canberra Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory [2020] ACTCA 9
Hulanicki v Walton (No 2) [2015] ACTCA 45
Old v McInnes [2011] NSWCA 410
Parties: BJM Canberra Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Australian Capital Territory (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors
Aulich Civil Law (Appellant)
Australian Capital Territory Government Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number: AC 31 of 2019
Decision under appeal:
Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT
Before: McWilliam AsJ
Date of Decision: 28 June 2019
Case Title: Australian Capital Territory v BJM Canberra Pty Ltd
Citation: [2019] ACTSC 170
0
4
1