Bamber v Hartman Pacific Pty Ltd; Bamber v Hartman Pacific Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the case of Bamber v Hartman Pacific Pty Ltd, the applicant sought an indemnity costs order against the respondent for proceedings related to the sale of a commercial property. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant, Bamber, had entered into a contract to purchase a property from the respondent, Hartman Pacific. However, the transaction fell through, leading to litigation over the sale. The applicant subsequently sought an indemnity costs order, arguing that the respondent had unreasonably refused to accept offers of compromise that would have resolved the dispute without the need for a trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to an indemnity costs order under the usual costs order rules. This required the court to consider whether the respondent's refusal to accept offers of compromise was unreasonable, and if such unreasonableness justified departing from the usual costs order. The court had to balance the principle of proportionality in costs orders against the need to encourage settlement and discourage frivolous litigation.

The court held that the respondent's refusal to accept the offers of compromise was not unreasonable. The offers were considered inadequate and did not reflect the applicant's true position or the merits of the case. As such, the court found no basis to depart from the usual costs order. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in costs orders and noted that while settlement is generally preferred, it must be on terms that are fair and reasonable. Consequently, the applicant's claim for an indemnity costs order was dismissed. The court did not make any orders for costs beyond the usual costs order.