Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd (No 3)

The case of Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd (No 3) involved a dispute regarding costs and offers of compromise under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR). The plaintiff, Built Qld Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd, were engaged in civil proceedings. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant's formal offer to settle, made in accordance with Chapter 9, Part 5 of the UCPR, met the essential requirements for a valid offer. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's offer under the principles of Calderbank v Calderbank was unreasonable and whether the defendant's costs should be paid on an indemnity basis.

The court examined the defendant's formal offer to settle, which was made on 21 June 2018. This offer was intended to settle "all claims" but did not distinguish between the claim and counterclaim. The offer required the parties to enter into a mutually acceptable deed of settlement and release reflecting the terms of the offer. However, the offer did not specify a rate for calculating the interest component but provided a methodology to do so. The court found that the defendant's offer did not comply with the UCPR because it did not distinguish between the claim and counterclaim, and it did not specify a rate to calculate the interest component. Consequently, the offer was deemed invalid under the UCPR.

In addition, the court assessed the Calderbank offer, which was an "all in" offer inclusive of costs and interest, and it did not distinguish between the claim and counterclaim. The court had to determine if the plaintiff acted unreasonably in not accepting the Calderbank offer, which was more favourable than the judgment. The court concluded that the plaintiff's refusal to accept the Calderbank offer was unreasonable, leading to the defendant's entitlement to indemnity costs from the plaintiff.

The court applied the general rule that costs should follow the event but found that another order for costs was appropriate in the circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs, calculated on the standard basis, up to and including 21 June 2018, and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs, calculated on the indemnity basis, after 21 June 2018.