Gleeson v Hammerton (No 2)

Gleeson v Hammerton (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Mr Gleeson, and the defendant, Mr Hammerton, in a legal dispute that reached the court. The plaintiff had initially made an offer of rules, which was later withdrawn before the trial. Subsequently, the plaintiff made another offer through a Calderbank letter, which was also withdrawn before the trial. The court awarded damages that exceeded the rules offer but were equal to the Calderbank offer. The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff should be granted indemnity costs for the entire proceedings or part of it, given that the plaintiff was unsuccessful on two specific issues.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff, despite being unsuccessful on two issues, should be deprived of costs for those issues and whether the plaintiff should pay the defendant’s costs. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the offers made by the plaintiff and their implications on the costs. It considered the general rule that costs follow the event and the specific rules governing costs of issues. The court weighed the factors such as the timing and nature of the offers, the plaintiff’s success on other issues, and the proportionality of the costs awarded.

The court ruled that the plaintiff was not to be deprived of costs for the issues on which they were unsuccessful. The court held that the plaintiff should not be required to pay the defendant’s costs for those issues either. This decision was based on the plaintiff’s partial success in the proceedings and the fact that the Calderbank letter offer, which was effectively honoured by the court’s award, played a significant role in determining the damages. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to costs for the proceedings up to a specified amount.