Australian Capital Territory v BJM Canberra Pty Ltd

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.