Favotto Family Restaurants Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2)

The respondents, Favotto Family Restaurants Pty Ltd, were assessed by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue for duty under the Gaming Machine Duty Act 2000. The respondents applied for a review of the duty assessments and subsequently made a Calderbank offer. The Chief Commissioner refused to accept the offer. The respondents applied for an order for indemnity costs against the Chief Commissioner. The court was required to determine whether the Chief Commissioner's refusal to accept the Calderbank offer was unreasonable and whether the respondents were entitled to indemnity costs. The court held that the Chief Commissioner's refusal to accept the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable as there was no evidence that the respondents' position was without merit. The court found that the respondents' case had some merit, and the Chief Commissioner's duty assessments were flawed. However, the court held that the respondents were not entitled to indemnity costs as the Chief Commissioner's refusal to accept the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable.

The court held that the Chief Commissioner's refusal to accept the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable as there was no evidence that the respondents' position was without merit. The court found that the respondents' case had some merit, and the Chief Commissioner's duty assessments were flawed. However, the court held that the respondents were not entitled to indemnity costs as the Chief Commissioner's refusal to accept the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable. The court held that the respondents' claim for indemnity costs was an exceptional circumstance and that the respondents had not demonstrated that the Chief Commissioner's refusal to accept the Calderbank offer was unreasonable. The court held that the respondents had not satisfied the threshold requirement for indemnity costs and that the application for indemnity costs should be dismissed.