Hardcastle v Santos Limited (No 2)

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, a gas company, in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking compensation for damage to property allegedly caused by gas leaks. The defendant applied for indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiff had made an offer of compromise under Calderbank that was unreasonably rejected. The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing that the offer was made in bad faith and that the defendant had engaged in misconduct. The court had to determine whether the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs and, if so, whether any misconduct by the defendant should be taken into account. The court found that the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs but that the plaintiff's misconduct meant that the costs should not be awarded on an indemnity basis. The court also found that the plaintiff's costs of a particular notice of motion should be assessed on an indemnity basis. The court refused the defendant's application for recusal or postponement or stay and noted that the plaintiff had the right to apply to set aside or vary the orders made. The court ordered that the plaintiff's costs of the application be part of the costs of the proceedings but not part of the costs of the motion filed on 7 February 2017.