Ian Bruce McNab and Alistair Finlay McNab v Ian McPhee Graham and Beth Maureen Graham (No 2)

The plaintiffs, Ian Bruce McNab and Alistair Finlay McNab, sought to recover costs from the defendants, Ian McPhee Graham and Beth Maureen Graham, following a dispute that involved an appeal to the Supreme Court. The nature of the dispute and the underlying case is not detailed in the provided excerpt, but it pertains to a decision where the defendants were found liable and an appeal was subsequently lodged. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs of the appeal should be awarded on an indemnity basis. The defendants had offered to settle the matter on terms that would have resulted in the plaintiffs recovering significantly less than the full costs awarded. The plaintiffs, however, proceeded to appeal and were successful in their bid. The court was tasked with determining if the defendants' offer of compromise should have any bearing on the costs awarded, particularly in light of the precedent set by the case Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority [No 2] (2005) 13 VR 435.

The court considered the precedent set in Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm, which held that an offer of compromise could be a relevant factor in determining the costs of litigation. However, the court also noted that the offer must be genuine and made in good faith. In applying this principle, the court concluded that the defendants' offer was not genuine and did not meet the standard of good faith. As a result, the offer of compromise did not influence the decision on costs. The court awarded the plaintiffs the full costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.

The court's decision resulted in the plaintiffs being awarded the full costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis. This outcome reflects the court's view that the defendants' offer was not made in good faith and thus did not warrant any consideration in the costs determination.