Australian Capital Territory v BJM Canberra Pty Ltd

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Capital Territory (the appellant) sought costs against BJM Canberra Pty Ltd (the respondent) following the dismissal of its appeal. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a single clause within a contract, and the respondent sought costs on an indemnity or solicitor-client basis, having made both an offer of compromise and a Calderbank offer which were rejected by the appellant.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant's rejection of the respondent's Calderbank offer was unreasonable, thereby justifying an award of costs on a more generous basis than the usual party-and-party scale. The Court also considered the efficacy of the respondent's offer of compromise, noting it did not comply with the requirements of rule 1002(2) of the relevant court rules.

McWilliam AsJ found that the appeal involved a straightforward, one-dimensional construction issue concerning a single contractual clause. Given the limited scope and apparent clarity of the issue, the Court determined that it was not unreasonable for the appellant to reject the Calderbank offer. Consequently, the application for costs on an indemnity or solicitor-client basis was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established