Hammond v Hammond (No 2)

The court was called upon to determine the issue of indemnity costs in the matter of Hammond v Hammond (No 2). The case involved a dispute between the parties over the distribution of family assets following a divorce. The respondent sought an order for indemnity costs against the applicant, arguing that the applicant's case was manifestly devoid of merit and that the applicant should have known that there was no real prospect of success. The respondent also sought indemnity costs on the basis of a Calderbank offer. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the applicant on the basis that the applicant's case was manifestly devoid of merit and that the applicant should have known that there was no real prospect of success. The court was also required to determine whether indemnity costs should be awarded on the basis of a Calderbank offer made by the respondent. The court considered the principles of indemnity costs, the merits of the parties' cases, and the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the applicant's case was not manifestly devoid of merit and that there was a real prospect of success. The court also found that the Calderbank offer did not provide a sufficient basis for an order for indemnity costs. The court held that indemnity costs should not be awarded against the applicant. The court considered the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings and found that the respondent's conduct was not such as to warrant an order for indemnity costs.

The court made no order for indemnity costs against the applicant. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application for indemnity costs, assessed on the standard basis.