Geddes v Taleni (No 2)

The case of Geddes v Taleni (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Geddes, and the defendant, Taleni. The plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained in a car accident that occurred in 2011, which was caused by the defendant. The matter was before the court to determine the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff made an offer of compromise, which the defendant rejected, leading to a dispute over the costs of the proceedings.

The court was required to decide whether the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's offer of compromise was unreasonable and, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a solicitor and client basis. The court also had to determine whether the defendant's costs incurred after the offer of compromise should be taken into account when assessing the plaintiff's costs.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles set out in the case of Jones v Darker. The court found that the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's offer of compromise was unreasonable as it was not a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute. The court also noted that the defendant's costs incurred after the offer of compromise were excessive and not necessary for the resolution of the dispute. As a result, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the whole of the proceedings on a solicitor and client basis, in lieu of the costs order made on 24 July 2017.