Hopkins v Hopkins

In the case of Hopkins v Hopkins, the appellant sought to appeal against a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) regarding the assessment of costs. The dispute arose from a family law matter where the primary judge had ordered the respondent to pay a portion of the appellant's costs. The appellant argued that the decision was flawed because the primary judge had not correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions when assessing the costs, particularly in relation to the determination of a qualifying offer under the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in assessing the costs and whether the principles outlined in Calderbank v Calderbank (1975) 3 All ER 333 applied to settlement offers made in proceedings at VCAT. The central issue was the interpretation of the phrase 'the costs the Tribunal would have ordered at the time the offer was made' and whether it included costs incurred in relation to the proceedings at VCAT.

The court held that the primary judge had not correctly applied the statutory provisions when assessing the costs. The court clarified that the phrase 'the costs the Tribunal would have ordered at the time the offer was made' referred to the costs that the Tribunal would have awarded if it had made its orders at the time the offer was made, rather than the costs that were actually incurred. The court applied the decision in Metricon Homes Pty Ltd v Sawyer [2013] VSC 518 in part and distinguished it in part, finding that the principles in Calderbank v Calderbank did not apply to settlement offers made in proceedings at VCAT. The court found that the primary judge had erred in his assessment of the costs and that the appeal should be allowed.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the primary judge, and remitted the matter to VCAT for reassessment of the costs in accordance with the court's reasons. The court further ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal.