John Goss Projects Pl v Thiess Watkins White Constructions Limited

The case before the Supreme Court of Queensland involves a dispute over the taxation of costs between John Goss Projects Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) and Gundadin Pty Ltd (the respondent). The plaintiff sought a review of the taxation of costs following a dismissed action where both the plaintiff's claim and the respondent's counter-claim were dismissed. The plaintiff had filed multiple bills of costs, while the respondent had filed fewer bills, all of which were subject to taxation. A significant aspect of the dispute is an offer to settle made by the plaintiff to the respondent under Order 91 Rule 89 of the Supreme Court Rules, which the respondent did not accept. The plaintiff argued that the respondent should bear the costs of taxation because the taxed amount was less favourable to the respondent than the terms of the offer.

The legal issues before the court were whether the offer to settle was valid and certain, and if the offer was more favourable to the respondent than the taxation outcome. The court had to determine if the offer complied with the requirement of being clear and certain, and whether it was made in respect of the whole of the plaintiff's liability for costs. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if the offer was more favourable to the respondent than the result of the taxation.

The court found that the offer was not vague and was in accordance with Order 91 Rule 89. The offer clearly specified that the plaintiff would pay the respondent $100,000 in exchange for the respondent releasing the plaintiff from any liability for costs under other bills of costs. The court concluded that the offer was certain and calculable, and the respondent was fully aware of the implications of the offer. The court also determined that the offer was more favourable to the respondent than the taxation result, as the respondent would have received a significantly higher net benefit by accepting the offer. Therefore, the court ruled that the respondent should not have been awarded costs of taxation and ordered that the respondent pay the plaintiff's costs of taxation and the costs of the review.