Charan v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Costs Ruling)

The case before the court involved a dispute between Charan, the plaintiff, and Nationwide News Pty Ltd, the defendant, concerning defamation. Charan sought damages for defamatory statements made by the defendant. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's statements were false and defamatory, and the defendant counterclaimed for malicious falsehood and abuse of process. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's refusal of settlement offers made by the defendant was unreasonable and whether the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs under the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic).

The court considered whether the settlement offers made by the defendant were genuine and whether the plaintiff had an adequate period to respond to them. It was found that the offers were not all genuine, and the plaintiff was not given sufficient time to respond to some of them. However, the plaintiff was able to respond to one offer, which he refused. The court needed to decide if the plaintiff's refusal was unreasonable, given that it required him to pay a sum of money at the time of the offer. The court also had to consider the implications of the Hazeldene principles and the Calderbank offers on the award of costs.

The court determined that the plaintiff's refusal of the settlement offer was not unreasonable, given the circumstances at the time. The court found that the defendant was not entitled to indemnity costs due to the inadequate period allowed for acceptance of some offers and the genuineness of the offers. The court emphasised that the plaintiff's refusal was not unreasonable as it involved paying a sum of money at a time when the plaintiff had already incurred significant legal costs. The court's decision was based on the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), section 40(2), which provides that a court may order that costs be paid on an indemnity basis if the court is satisfied that the refusal was unreasonable.

The court ordered that the defendant was not entitled to indemnity costs. The court also noted that the plaintiff was entitled to costs up to the time of the unsuccessful application for indemnity costs. The court's decision highlighted the importance of genuine offers and adequate time for response in settlement negotiations and the need for courts to consider the circumstances of the parties when determining the reasonableness of refusals of settlement offers.