Koropachinsky v Wang (No. 2)

In the case of Koropachinsky v Wang (No. 2), the plaintiff sought a judgment against the defendants for the recovery of unpaid wages, accrued interest, and legal costs. The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff, who had worked for the defendants, alleged that they were owed a significant sum for unpaid wages. The defendants denied liability and contested the plaintiff’s claim. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover unpaid wages, interest, and costs, and if so, to what extent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs following the defendants’ failure to accept the plaintiff’s offer of compromise. The plaintiff had made a formal offer of compromise in accordance with the rules, which the defendants did not accept. The court considered the relevant authorities and principles governing indemnity costs, including the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to award such costs. The court also examined the circumstances in which a Calderbank letter had been issued and whether the offer was reasonable. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs as the offer of compromise was reasonable and the defendants’ refusal to accept it was unjustified.

The court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded judgment for unpaid wages, interest, and costs. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs from the date of the offer of compromise, as the defendants’ refusal to accept it was unreasonable. The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis up until 24 November 2017, and thereafter on an indemnity basis. The court also awarded judgment to the plaintiff for the sum of $178,993.49 plus interest of $15,104.91, making a total of $194,098.40. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and applicable law, and the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had established their claim on the balance of probabilities.