Hewitt v Count Financial Limited (No.2)

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Hewitt v Count Financial Limited (No.2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Hewitt, and the defendant, Count Financial Limited. The primary issue revolved around the defendant's Calderbank offers to the plaintiff, which were subsequently refused. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's refusal of the defendant's offers was unreasonable given the circumstances.

The central legal issue before the court was to apply the appropriate test to assess the reasonableness of the plaintiff's refusal of the defendant's Calderbank offers. Calderbank offers, which are offers to settle made by a defendant, are subject to specific criteria which, if not met, may result in the party refusing the offer being penalised for costs. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiff's refusal was unreasonable and if the defendant was entitled to an order for costs as a result.

The court carefully considered the context and circumstances surrounding the Calderbank offers. It examined the terms of the offers, the stage of the proceedings at which they were made, and the plaintiff's reasons for refusing them. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff's refusal was unreasonable, leading to the conclusion that the defendant was entitled to an order for costs. This decision underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances when evaluating the reasonableness of a refusal of a Calderbank offer.

The court ordered that the defendant, Count Financial Limited, be awarded costs for the unreasonable refusal of the Calderbank offers. This ruling serves as a reminder to litigants of the potential consequences of rejecting settlement offers without proper consideration of the circumstances.