Gorst v Sydney Equine Coaches Pty Ltd

The applicant, Gorst, brought proceedings against the First and Second Respondents, Sydney Equine Coaches Pty Ltd, seeking damages for alleged misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. The dispute was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central issue before the Court was whether there was a sufficient basis to justify making an order for costs inconsistent with Federal Court Rules r 25.14(1)(b), given that the applicant had refused an offer of compromise and subsequently obtained a less preferable judgment. Additionally, the Court needed to consider whether a substantial change of position had occurred following the offer of compromise.

The Court found that the applicant had refused a settlement offer that was advantageous compared to the judgment eventually obtained. Despite the refusal, the Court determined that the applicant's decision was reasonable given the circumstances. The Court emphasised that the offer was not entirely fair to the applicant and that there had not been a substantial change of position post the offer. As a result, the Court ruled that the applicant was entitled to an order for costs that deviated from the usual practice under r 25.14(1)(b). Consequently, the Court made an order for judgment in favour of the applicant against the First and Second Respondents, jointly and severally, in the sum of $36,000. The Court also ordered the Respondents to pay the applicant’s costs up to a certain date and directed that a previous order be vacated. The primary judgment was to be stayed for a period of 28 days from the date of the orders.