Grant Reid Wilson atf G&L Wilson Family Trust v QBT Pty Limited (No 2)

The case involved a dispute between Grant Reid Wilson, acting on behalf of the G&L Wilson Family Trust, and QBT Pty Limited. The plaintiffs sought to vacate a costs order from a related matter. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs were successful in only one of several claims they brought against the defendant. The central issue before the court was the appropriate apportionment of recoverable costs, particularly in light of the plaintiffs' success on only one claim and the defendant's offers of compromise made pursuant to Calderbank. The court had to determine whether to apportion the costs incurred after the defendant's offer of compromise, which the plaintiffs had rejected.

The court noted that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules allow for the apportionment of costs where a party has made a Calderbank offer of compromise that is not accepted by the opposing party. In this instance, the plaintiffs had rejected the defendant's offer, and the court had to consider whether this rejection warranted an apportionment of costs. The court found that the plaintiffs' rejection of the defendant's offer, made after they had achieved partial success in the proceedings, was a significant factor. The court held that the rejection of the offer and the subsequent partial success of the plaintiffs warranted an apportionment of costs. The court considered the timing of the offer, the plaintiffs' conduct, and the outcome of the proceedings in making its decision.

Ultimately, the court decided to apportion the costs incurred after the defendant's offer of compromise. The court held that the plaintiffs should bear a portion of the costs incurred by the defendant after the offer was made, as the plaintiffs' rejection of the offer and their partial success in the proceedings justified such an outcome. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the timing and nature of offers of compromise when determining the appropriate apportionment of costs. The court's ruling provided clarity on the application of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in cases involving rejected offers of compromise and partial success.