Bofinger v Kingsway Group Pty Ltd (No. 2)
Case
•
[2009] NSWCA 172
•2 July 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
BOFINGER v Kingsway Group Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2009] NSWCA 172
[2009] NSWCA 172
2 July 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Bofinger v Kingsway Group Pty Ltd (No. 2)*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an application for indemnity costs. The dispute concerned an offer made by the fifth to seventh respondents to the guarantors, which the guarantors had not accepted.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the guarantors should be ordered to pay the costs of the fifth to seventh respondents on an indemnity basis, following the guarantors' failure to accept a *Calderbank* offer. The Court was required to determine if there were exceptional circumstances justifying an award of indemnity costs, particularly in the absence of any question of principle being involved.
The Court reasoned that the guarantors' conduct in refusing the *Calderbank* offer, which was made in circumstances where the fifth to seventh respondents had acted reasonably and the offer was not unreasonable, warranted an award of indemnity costs. The Court applied the principle that where a party unreasonably rejects a reasonable offer of settlement, and subsequently achieves a worse outcome, an award of indemnity costs may be appropriate. The Court found that the guarantors' refusal of the offer was unreasonable and that no question of principle was raised by the proceedings that would militate against such an award.
The Court ordered that the costs payable by the guarantors to the fifth to seventh respondents be on an indemnity basis from 7 December 2007, and that the guarantors pay the fifth to seventh respondents' costs of the application for indemnity costs.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the guarantors should be ordered to pay the costs of the fifth to seventh respondents on an indemnity basis, following the guarantors' failure to accept a *Calderbank* offer. The Court was required to determine if there were exceptional circumstances justifying an award of indemnity costs, particularly in the absence of any question of principle being involved.
The Court reasoned that the guarantors' conduct in refusing the *Calderbank* offer, which was made in circumstances where the fifth to seventh respondents had acted reasonably and the offer was not unreasonable, warranted an award of indemnity costs. The Court applied the principle that where a party unreasonably rejects a reasonable offer of settlement, and subsequently achieves a worse outcome, an award of indemnity costs may be appropriate. The Court found that the guarantors' refusal of the offer was unreasonable and that no question of principle was raised by the proceedings that would militate against such an award.
The Court ordered that the costs payable by the guarantors to the fifth to seventh respondents be on an indemnity basis from 7 December 2007, and that the guarantors pay the fifth to seventh respondents' costs of the application for indemnity costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Offer and Acceptance
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Saleh v The Nominal Defendant (No. 2) [2009] NSWDC 165
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust v McCluskey
[2012] NSWSC 421
Saleh v The Nominal Defendant (No. 2)
[2009] NSWDC 165
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council
[2000] NSWCA 323
Jones v Bradley (No 2)
[2003] NSWCA 258
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green
[2004] NSWCA 341