IPEX ITG Pty Ltd (in liq) v State of Victoria (No 2)

The case of IPEX ITG Pty Ltd (in liq) v State of Victoria (No 2) dealt with a dispute involving the liquidator of IPEX ITG Pty Ltd, who was suing the State of Victoria. The primary focus was on costs related to the litigation, particularly whether an unreasonable refusal to accept a Calderbank offer should result in a costs order against a non-party. The plaintiff's litigation was conducted for the benefit of a family trust, with a non-party director of the trustee also being the object of the trust. The case ultimately reached the court to determine whether costs should be apportioned and if indemnity costs should be awarded concerning specific matters, given that the plaintiff was successful on one issue.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the non-acceptance of a Calderbank offer was unreasonable, leading to a potential costs order against a non-party. Additionally, the court had to consider whether indemnity costs should be awarded for particular matters and if costs should be apportioned, particularly in light of the plaintiff's insolvency and the litigation being conducted for the benefit of a family trust. The court also needed to address whether the non-party, who was both a director of the trustee and the object of the trust, should be subject to a costs order.

In its reasoning, the court found that the non-acceptance of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable and thus did not warrant a costs order against the non-party. The court determined that since the plaintiff was insolvent and the litigation was conducted for the benefit of a family trust, a costs order should not be made against the non-party, who was both a director of the trustee and the object of the trust. The court also concluded that indemnity costs should not be awarded in relation to specific matters and that costs should not be apportioned, given the plaintiff's success on one issue.

The court's final orders did not impose any costs against the non-party, and no indemnity costs were awarded for specific matters. The court's decision highlighted the importance of the circumstances surrounding the litigation, particularly the insolvency of the plaintiff and the nature of the trust involved, in determining the appropriate allocation of costs.