Chandler v Silwood

The case of Chandler v Silwood involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought indemnity costs after making offers that were not accepted by the defendant. The plaintiff ultimately obtained an order that was more favourable than the offers made. The court had to determine whether indemnity costs should be awarded under these circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the plaintiff’s costs should be assessed on the District or Supreme Court scale, considering that the proceedings were initiated in the Supreme Court but the relief granted could have been provided by the District Court.

The court examined the principle that indemnity costs may be awarded when the plaintiff has made offers which the defendant rejected, and the final order is more favourable than the plaintiff’s offers. It considered whether the plaintiff's final outcome justified the award of indemnity costs. The court also scrutinised the procedural history and the nature of the relief granted to determine the appropriate scale for assessing costs, given the original jurisdiction of the proceedings and the possible alternative forum.

In deciding the matter, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s final order was indeed more favourable than the offers made, warranting an award of indemnity costs from the point when the formal offer expired on 25 June 2015. The court also determined that the costs should be assessed on the District Court scale, as the relief granted could have been given by the District Court. Therefore, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis up to 25 June 2015, as agreed or assessed, on the District Court scale. From that date onwards, the defendant was to pay the plaintiff’s costs on an indemnity basis.