Gobbert v Elders Rural Finance Services Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gobbert & Ors v Elders Rural Finance Services Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2017] QDC 234

PARTIES:

JASON STANLEY GOBBERT, ALEXANDER DEAN GOBBERT AND STANLEY MORTON GOBBERT trading as GOBBERT BROS
(Plaintiffs)

v

ELDERS RURAL SERVICES AUSTRALIA LIMITED ACN 004 045 121  
(First Defendant)

and

RURAL BANK LIMITED ACN 083 938 416
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

626 of 2016

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Kefford DCJ

ORDER:

The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the costs of each of the first and second defendants to be assessed on the standard basis up to and including 20 February 2017, and on the indemnity basis thereafter.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – OFFER TO SETTLE – where the first and second defendants made an offer to settle prior to trial – where the plaintiffs did not accept the offer – where the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed – where the defendants seek their costs on the indemnity basis, subject to their offer – whether the plaintiffs’ refusal of the defendants’ offer was unreasonable

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 361, r 681, r 703

CASES:

Bert & Ors v Red 5 Limited & Anor [2017] QSC 8, followed

Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) [2005] VSCA 298; (2005) 13 VR 435, considered

J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd [2014] QCA 23, applied

Mizikovsky v Queensland Television Limited & Ors [2013] QCA 68; [2014] 1 Qd R 197, applied

COUNSEL:

D J Pyle with S Forder for the Plaintiffs

N Ferrett for the First Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the Plaintiffs

Crawford Legal for the First Defendant

Dibbs Barker for the Second Defendant

Background

  1. On 16 February 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Claim and Statement of Claim in this matter.  The Plaintiffs’ case was, in effect, that Jason Stanley Gobbert (on behalf of the Plaintiffs) relied on representations made by Paul Nelson (on behalf of the First Defendant and/or Second Defendant) to the effect that finance had been, or would be, approved prior to Mr Gobbert making the winning bid of $6.8 million at an auction to purchase a rural holding.  The Plaintiffs claimed those representations were misleading or deceptive within the meaning of s 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

  1. The trial with respect to this action was heard on 22 to 25 May 2017, with oral submissions on 17 August 2017.

  1. On 30 August 2017 I dismissed the Plaintiffs claim and ordered that the parties file and serve written submissions as to costs by 6 September 2017.  That has been done by all parties.  The Plaintiffs also filed reply submissions.

Offer to settle

  1. On or about 20 February 2017, the First Defendant and Second Defendant made a joint offer to the Plaintiffs under Part 5…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gobbert v Elders Rural Finance Services Ltd (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] QDC 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the plaintiffs, Gobbert, suing the first and second defendants, Elders Rural Finance Services Ltd, in relation to financial matters. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, and the defendants sought their costs on an indemnity basis, contingent upon the plaintiffs' refusal of a prior offer to settle. The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiffs' decision not to accept the defendants' offer to settle was unreasonable. The court needed to determine if the refusal of the settlement offer constituted an unreasonable decision, which would then warrant costs on an indemnity basis.

The court examined the nature of the offer and the circumstances under which it was made. It considered the terms of the offer, the timing in relation to the trial, and the plaintiffs' reasons for rejecting the offer. The court assessed whether the offer was reasonable and whether the plaintiffs' refusal was justifiable under the circumstances. The analysis involved a detailed look at the settlement offer's terms and the plaintiffs' response, weighing the merits of accepting versus rejecting the offer. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs' refusal to accept the offer was unreasonable.

Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiffs must pay the defendants' costs. The costs were to be assessed on the standard basis up until 20 February 2017, and on the indemnity basis from that date onwards. The decision underscored the importance of considering settlement offers carefully, as unreasonable refusals can lead to significant financial consequences for the rejecting party.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the costs of each of the first and second defendants to be assessed on the standard basis up to and including 20 February 2017, and on the indemnity basis thereafter.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.