Edmund James Bateman v Face Accountants Pty Limited

In Edmund James Bateman v Face Accountants Pty Limited, the plaintiff sought damages for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct and negligence by the defendant accountants. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had established that the defendants' conduct had caused him a loss, and if not, what the appropriate costs order should be given the circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff could succeed in his claim, and if not, what the appropriate costs order should be given the defendants' conduct. The court examined whether the defendants' admission of misleading or deceptive conduct and negligence during the hearing, but before the plaintiff had established his loss, should impact the costs order. The court also considered the two offers of compromise made by the defendants: the first offering a verdict in their favour with them paying the plaintiff's costs, and the second offering $200,000 plus costs.

The court held that there should be an allowance in favour of the plaintiff because the defendants should have made the admission earlier. However, the second offer of compromise was effective to give the plaintiff indemnity costs after adjusting for the allowance. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay 75 per cent of the defendants' costs on the ordinary basis up until the second offer of compromise and on the indemnity basis thereafter. This decision highlights the importance of timing in admissions and the impact of offers of compromise on costs orders.