Diamond v Simpson (No 4)

The case of *Diamond v Simpson (No 4)* concerned an application for indemnity costs by the plaintiff, referred to as the Doctor, against the defendant, the Hospital. The dispute arose from the Doctor's claim for contribution from the Hospital, which the Doctor argued should entitle him to indemnity costs due to the Hospital's rejection of settlement offers.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Doctor was entitled to an order for indemnity costs. This required the court to determine the nature and validity of the offers of contribution made by the Doctor, and whether the Hospital's rejection of these offers was unreasonable, thereby justifying an award of indemnity costs. Specifically, the court had to consider the distinction between offers of compromise under Part 22 Rule 1A and offers of contribution under Part 22 Rule 12 of the Rules, and how offers of contribution should be assessed in the context of costs.

The court reasoned that while offers of contribution under Part 22 Rule 12 do not carry the same automatic consequences as offers of compromise under Rule 1A, they can still be taken into account by the court when determining costs, similar to a *Calderbank* letter. The court found that the Doctor's offers to accept a 50% contribution were not merely requests for instructions or demands for the full claim amount, but rather constituted genuine compromises, given the inherent uncertainty of liability between zero and one hundred percent for each party. The court rejected the Hospital's assertion that the "Syntocinon theory" had been destroyed at the time of the offers, noting that litigants often assess offers with significant unknowns. The court also accepted the Doctor's submission that there was a distinction between offers of compromise and offers of contribution, and that Rule 12 was not intended to be linked to Rule 1A.

The court ultimately granted the Doctor's application for indemnity costs, supplementing its previous orders.