Doric v Orec (No 2)

In the matter of Doric v Orec, the Court was tasked with determining several issues regarding costs between the parties, particularly focusing on the appropriateness of an indemnity costs order. The case involved a dispute over the terms of a proposed settlement and the appropriate allocation of costs under the party/party costs regime. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether an indemnity costs order should be granted given the nature of the Calderbank offer and the subsequent timeframe provided for its acceptance. Additionally, the Court had to consider the standard of evidence required for a gross sum costs order in the absence of specific evidence regarding the legal work completed or the rates charged.

The Court deliberated on the terms of the Calderbank offer, noting that the proposal lacked clarity and did not exhibit a genuine element of compromise. The seven-day timeframe for acceptance further complicated the matter, as it did not afford the opposing party sufficient opportunity to consider the offer. The Court found that the offer was not sufficiently clear or reasonable, thus not warranting an indemnity costs order. Regarding the general principle that costs follow the event, the Court examined the evidence presented for the gross sum costs order. The absence of detailed evidence on the legal work completed or the rates charged made it challenging to substantiate the claimed costs. Consequently, the Court was unable to determine the reasonableness of the claimed costs, leading to a conclusion that the party/party costs order should not be based on the gross sum claimed.

The Court ultimately ruled that the claimant was not entitled to an indemnity costs order due to the inadequate nature of the Calderbank offer. Furthermore, the claimant was not entitled to a gross sum costs order without providing sufficient evidence to substantiate the claimed costs. The Court's decision underscored the importance of clarity and genuine compromise in settlement offers, as well as the necessity of detailed evidence to support claims for costs in legal proceedings.