Kemp v Ryan

The appeal in *Kemp v Ryan* concerned a challenge to a Master's refusal to order indemnity costs. The appellant sought to overturn the Master's finding that an offer of settlement made by the respondent was not unambiguously clear and certain, and therefore did not constitute a proper Calderbank offer.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Master erred in concluding that the settlement offer lacked the requisite clarity and certainty to qualify as a Calderbank offer, thereby justifying a refusal to award indemnity costs. This involved an examination of the offer's terms and whether multiple interpretations were reasonably available.

The court found that the Master's conclusion that the offer was not sufficiently clear to be considered a Calderbank offer was not unreasonable. The Master had canvassed several possible interpretations of the offer's elements, both at first instance and on appeal, and determined that its ambiguity prevented it from meeting the strict requirements for such an offer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.