Lahoud v Lahoud (No 2)

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Lahoud v Lahoud (No 2) involves a dispute between the parties regarding the allocation of costs following a series of legal proceedings. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate costs to be awarded, particularly in light of a Calderbank offer that was rejected by one party, leading to an unsuccessful outcome. The legal issues before the court included whether there was a presumption in favour of indemnity costs, given the refusal of the offer, and whether the offer itself had any real element of compromise.

The court considered the nature of the Calderbank offer, which was described as an invitation to capitulate with no genuine compromise. The offer was made by the respondent, who subsequently failed to achieve a better result than what was proposed in the offer. The court noted that while there is no automatic presumption in favour of indemnity costs, the refusal of a genuine offer can influence the costs outcome. However, the court also emphasised the importance of proportionality in awarding costs, particularly in the context of parties engaging in prolonged and disproportionate disputes over costs.

The court concluded that the offer made by the respondent lacked any real element of compromise, and therefore, the refusal did not justify an indemnity costs order. The court further highlighted the ongoing and disproportionate nature of the disputes between the parties regarding costs. It was determined that the costs awarded should reflect the proportionality principle, considering the overall conduct of the proceedings. The court ultimately awarded costs in a manner that it deemed appropriate, taking into account the refusal of the offer and the proportionality of the costs disputes.