Hall & Hall v Basbuild Pty Ltd

The case of Hall & Hall v Basbuild Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the Appellants and the Respondent over a building contract. The Appellants had entered into a building contract with the Respondent for the construction of a residence. The Respondent later filed a formal offer of settlement, which the Appellants did not accept. The Respondent then issued proceedings against the Appellants, seeking damages for loss of profit. The legal issues before the court were whether the acceptance of a formal offer, for which a consent judgment may be entered, under 6 DCR 188(5) is restricted to the principal sum, and whether the offer was a "here and now" offer, and thereby implicitly no longer available for acceptance after a 14 day period. The court concluded that the NSW Rules of Court were clearly distinguishable from the subject Rules 6 DCR 187 and 188, and that while the penal provisions as to costs contained in 6 DCR 188(6); (6A) and (7) were directed to the quantum of “the principal relief” alone, this did not restrict the entry of a consent judgment to principal relief alone pursuant to 6 DCR 188(5). The court also found that the offer was not a "here and now" offer, and was still available for acceptance after a 14 day period.

The court's reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the relevant Rules of Court, and the precedents that had been established in other jurisdictions. The court noted that while some other jurisdictions had expressly restricted Notices of Offer to the principal relief, the subject Rules 6 DCR 187 and 188 did not contain such a restriction. The court also rejected the argument that the offer was a "here and now" offer, and was therefore no longer available for acceptance after a 14 day period. The court found that the offer was a valid offer of settlement, and that the Appellants were not entitled to the relief they sought.

The court's outcome was that the Appellants were not entitled to the relief they sought. The court declined to make a declaration that the document FDN 24 filed in the within action by the Plaintiff on 1 May 2008 was not an offer of settlement which complies with the requirements of DCR 6R187. The court also declined to make a declaration that, by reason of the declaration made as to FDN 24, the document FDN 25 filed in the within action by the Defendants on 9 February 2011 was not an acceptance of a formal offer of settlement for the purposes of DCR 6R188. The court further declined to grant leave for the Respondent to withdraw its Notice of Offer, nunc pro tunc, because of some perceived mistake by the Respondent as to the effect of its offer. The court also declined to enter a judgment following the filing of a Notice of Acceptance, where there would be an injustice to a party to do so. Finally, the court declined to make any orders as to costs.