Joudo v Joudo (No 2)

The matter of Joudo v Joudo (No 2) was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The case involved a dispute between the parties over costs. The wife, the applicant, sought costs from the husband on an indemnity basis due to his rejection of her Calderbank offer. The husband opposed the application, arguing that there was no question of principle that should result in indemnity costs being awarded.

The legal issues before the court were whether the husband's rejection of the Calderbank offer was a reason for departing from the usual rule of costs following a trial, and whether the husband should pay the wife's costs on an indemnity basis because of the rejection. The court considered the principles surrounding Calderbank offers and indemnity costs, and the circumstances of the case.

The court held that there was no question of principle that would justify awarding indemnity costs against the husband for rejecting the Calderbank offer. The court noted that while a Calderbank offer could be a factor in determining costs, it was not the only factor, and the court must consider all relevant circumstances. The court found that the husband's rejection of the offer was not unreasonable, and that the wife's costs were not excessive. The court concluded that the husband should not be required to pay the wife's costs on an indemnity basis.

No further orders were made by the court.