Hastie v Hastie (No. 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hastie & anor v Hastie & anor (No. 2) [2025] QSC 237

PARTIES:

ALLAN HASTIE

(first plaintiff)
and
JEANETTE FAY HASTIE
(second plaintiff)

v
CRAIG ANDREW HASTIE

(first defendant)
and
KYLIE ELIZABETH HASTIE

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 9844 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Williams J

ORDER:

The plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURT AND SETTLEMENTS – INFORMAL OFFERS AND CALDERBANK LETTERS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed – where the defendants’ relied on the plaintiffs’ rejection of two Calderbank offers in support of their submission for the award of indemnity costs – where the Calderbank offers did not articulate why non-acceptance would be unreasonable – where the offers were conditional on the execution of a deed of settlement that had not yet been drafted – whether the plaintiffs’ rejection of the Calderbank offers was unreasonable and justifies a departure from the general costs rule

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 681, r 702

Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333, cited
Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 536, cited
Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435; [2005] VSCA 298, cited
Lawrence v Ciantar (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 722, cited

McGee v Independent Assessor & Anor [No 2] [2024] QCA 7, cited

COUNSEL:

M G Larsen for the plaintiffs

A M Laylee for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

De Brenni & Co for the plaintiffs
ACS Legal Solutions for the defendants

  1. On 28 August 2025 the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed, the parties were directed to file and serve written submissions in respect of costs of not more than 3 pages, and reasons were published (Reasons).[1] 

  2. These reasons deal with the issue of costs. The defined terms in the Reasons are used in these reasons, unless stated to the contrary.

  3. The plaintiffs contend that the appropriate order is that the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs on the standard basis. 

  4. The defendants contend that the appropriate order is:

    (a)The plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs up to 4 pm on 27 November 2024 on the standard basis.

    (b)The plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs after 4 pm on 27 November 2024 on the indemnity basis.

  5. The defendants rely on two Calderbank offers[2] that were not accepted by the plaintiffs in support of their submission for the Court to exercise the discretion to award part indemnity costs.

    [2]Offers made in accordance with the principles outlined in Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 2 All ER 333.

  6. Accordingly, it is not contentious between the parties that the plaintiffs should be…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hastie v Hastie (No. 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] QSC 237
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hastie v Hastie (No. 2), the plaintiffs sought a divorce from the defendants. The dispute reached the Family Court of Australia, where the plaintiffs' claim was ultimately dismissed. The defendants then argued that the plaintiffs' rejection of two informal offers of compromise, referred to as Calderbank offers, was unreasonable, and sought indemnity costs as a result. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiffs' rejection of the offers was unreasonable and, if so, whether this justified a departure from the general rule regarding costs in civil proceedings.

The court examined the nature of the Calderbank offers, which were made in the form of letters. These offers did not provide any explanation as to why the rejection of the offers would be unreasonable. Furthermore, the offers were conditional on the execution of a deed of settlement, which had not yet been drafted at the time of the offers. The court had to consider whether these factors meant that the plaintiffs' rejection of the offers was unreasonable and whether this justified an award of indemnity costs to the defendants.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the Calderbank offers lacked the necessary articulation as to why their rejection would be unreasonable. Additionally, the conditional nature of the offers meant that the plaintiffs could not be expected to accept them without further information. As a result, the court found that the plaintiffs' rejection of the offers was not unreasonable. Consequently, the court declined to depart from the general rule regarding costs in civil proceedings and ruled that the plaintiffs would pay the defendants' costs on the standard basis.

The court's decision concluded that the plaintiffs' rejection of the Calderbank offers was not unreasonable, and thus the defendants were not entitled to indemnity costs. The final order of the court was that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs on the standard basis, as per the general rule for civil proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs on the standard basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.