Barboza v Blundy

The case of Barboza v Blundy involved the plaintiff, Barboza, and the defendants, Blundy. The dispute centred around whether the plaintiff had acted unreasonably by not accepting offers of compromise made by the defendants. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants made two Calderbank offers, which are informal offers of settlement that can impact the costs orders if the offer is not accepted. Following the plaintiff giving evidence on the first day of the trial, the defendants made a third offer, which was also open for 14 days. The plaintiff did not accept any of the offers within the specified timeframes. The central legal issue for the court was to determine whether the plaintiff acted unreasonably by not accepting the offers of compromise.

The court considered the principles set out in previous cases regarding the acceptance of offers of compromise and the consequences of unreasonable refusals. The court noted that Calderbank offers, if not accepted, can have significant implications on the costs orders. The court found that the plaintiff had not acted reasonably in rejecting the offers, as they were not manifestly excessive or made in bad faith. The court highlighted that the plaintiff had an opportunity to assess the merits of the case before making a decision on the offers, and the failure to accept the offers within the specified timeframes was unreasonable.

In light of the plaintiff's unreasonable refusal of the offers, the court made orders for the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs. Specifically, the court ordered that the plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding until 8 November 2019, on the standard basis, and the costs of the proceeding after 8 November 2019, on the indemnity basis. This decision underscores the importance of considering and acting upon offers of compromise in a timely and reasonable manner.