Ibbs v Woodrow - [2002] QCA 298

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ibbs v Woodrow & Anor [2002] QCA 298

PARTIES:

JANE IBBS
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
JOHN LESLIE WOODROW
(first defendant/first respondent)
QBE INSURANCE LTD ACN 000 157 899
(second defendant/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11536 of 2001
DC No 679 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 21 June 2002

Further Order delivered 16 August 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 April 2002; 21 June 2002

JUDGES:

Davies and McPherson JJA and Atkinson J

Further Order of the Court

ORDER:

The second respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the trial, the appeal, and this application as to costs, to be calculated on the indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where appellant made offer of settlement – where offer not accepted – where court awarded damages no less favourable than offer of settlement – whether second respondent should be ordered to pay indemnity costs

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 360, r 361

COUNSEL:

J G Crowley QC, with R W Trotter, for the appellant
R M Treston for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Shane Ellis Lawyer (Gold Coast) for the appellant
Quinlan Miller & Treston for the respondents

THE COURT: After a trial in the District Court judgment was given for the plaintiff. The plaintiff successfully appealed to this court in relation to the quantum of damages and this Court set aside the judgment of the trial judge and substituted a higher award of damages.

When the judgment of this Court was delivered, the appellant sought an order that the second respondent pay its costs on the indemnity basis on the ground that the award made by this Court was no less favourable than the appellant’s offer of settlement. The sole question for determination is whether the second respondent should be ordered to pay the appellant’s cost on an indemnity basis.

On 6 June 2001, the second respondent delivered a formal offer of settlement to the appellant in the sum of $60,000.00 with costs on the standard basis. On 15 June 2001, the appellant delivered a formal offer of settlement in the sum of $75,000.00 with costs on the standard basis. Neither offer of settlement was accepted and the case proceeded to trial.

On 27 November 2001, judgment was delivered for the appellant in the sum of $52,889.44. Since this amount was less than the second respondent’s formal offer of settlement, the learned trial judge ordered, in accordance with r 361 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”) that the second respondent pay the appellant’s costs up to the date of the offer and that thereafter the appellant pay the second respondent’s costs.

On 21 June 2002, this Court set aside the original judgment and entered judgment for the appellant in the sum of $86,681.94. Since this sum was more than the appellant’s offer of $75,000.00,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ibbs v Woodrow

Details

AGLC: Ibbs v Woodrow [2002] QCA 298
Case: [2002] QCA 298
Decision Date: 21 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ibbs v Woodrow is a case where the High Court of Australia considered the appropriate costs order in the context of an offer of settlement that was not accepted. The appellant, Ibbs, sued the respondents for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. The case was tried and ultimately, Ibbs was awarded damages, which were no less favourable than the settlement offer he had previously made and which had been rejected by the respondents.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the second respondent should be ordered to pay the appellant's costs on an indemnity basis, given that the damages awarded were no less favourable than the settlement offer made by the appellant. The court had to determine whether departing from the general rule of costs on a party-and-party basis was warranted in this instance. The High Court examined the principles governing costs orders in light of the appellant's offer of settlement and its subsequent rejection by the respondents.

In delivering the judgment, the High Court noted that an offer of settlement that is not accepted can be a significant factor in determining costs. The court observed that the appellant's offer of settlement was comprehensive and specific, covering all the issues in dispute. Despite the respondents' rejection of this offer, the damages awarded at trial were no less favourable to the appellant than the offer. The court held that under these circumstances, it was appropriate to order the second respondent to pay the appellant's costs on an indemnity basis, which includes not only the costs of the trial and appeal but also the costs of the application for costs. This decision underscores the importance of considering offers of settlement in the context of costs orders, particularly where the outcome at trial aligns closely with the terms of the rejected offer.

The final orders of the court required the second respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the trial, the appeal, and the application for costs, all to be calculated on the indemnity basis. This decision highlights the court's willingness to deviate from the standard party-and-party costs order when an offer of settlement plays a significant role in the resolution of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The second respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the trial, the appeal, and this application as to costs, to be calculated on the indemnity 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.

CITATION:	Ibbs v Woodrow & Anor [2002] QCA 298
PARTIES:	JANE IBBS (plaintiff/appellant) v JOHN LESLIE WOODROW (first defendant/first respondent) QBE INSURANCE LTD ACN 000 157 899 (second defendant/second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11536 of 2001 DC No 679 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered 21 June 2002 Further Order delivered 16 August 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 April 2002; 21 June 2002
JUDGES:	Davies and McPherson JJA and Atkinson J Further Order of the Court
ORDER:	The second respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the trial, the appeal, and this application as to costs, to be calculated on the indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where appellant made offer of settlement – where offer not accepted – where court awarded damages no less favourable than offer of settlement – whether second respondent should be ordered to pay indemnity costs Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 360, r 361
COUNSEL:	J G Crowley QC, with R W Trotter, for the appellant R M Treston for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Shane Ellis Lawyer (Gold Coast) for the appellant Quinlan Miller & Treston for the respondents