GOWAY Travel Pty Limited v Critchley (No 2)

The case of GOWAY Travel Pty Limited v Critchley (No 2) involved a dispute over costs following a successful cause of action that was amended by the plaintiff late in the proceedings. The plaintiff, GOWAY Travel, had initially failed in respect of some travel costs but succeeded on another cause of action. The legal issues before the court centred on whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs up to the date of the amendment, whether the failed claim for travel costs was separable, and if the proceedings should have been brought in the District Court, which could impact the plaintiff's entitlement to costs. Additionally, the court considered whether the defendants should benefit from unaccepted Calderbank letters and the calculation of the quantum of the plaintiff's claim.

The court held that the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs up to the date of the amendment because the amendment was material and the plaintiff had not demonstrated that it had a good reason for making it. The court found that the failed claim for travel costs was not separable, so the plaintiff was not required to pay the defendants' costs for that particular claim. Regarding the appropriateness of the court, the court ruled that the proceedings were properly brought in the Federal Circuit Court, and therefore the plaintiff was not deprived of costs on that account. The court also held that the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of unaccepted Calderbank letters, as these were not offers of settlement but rather offers to settle specific claims. Finally, the court determined the quantum of the plaintiff's claim based on the evidence presented.

The court ordered that GOWAY Travel pay the defendants' costs up to the date of the amendment. The plaintiff was not required to pay the defendants' costs for the failed claim for travel costs. The court also confirmed that the proceedings were properly brought in the Federal Circuit Court, and the plaintiff was not deprived of costs on that account. Additionally, the court ruled that the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of unaccepted Calderbank letters. The final order included a detailed calculation of the quantum of the plaintiff's successful claim.