Hastie v Hastie (No. 2)

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.