Lama v Roselands Services Pty Ltd (No. 2)

In the case of Lama v Roselands Services Pty Ltd (No. 2), Sameer Lama and Sirjana Lama brought proceedings against Roselands Services Pty Ltd in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The dispute between the parties centred around various claims including breaches of contract, negligence, and other related issues. The CAT was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The primary legal issue before the CAT was the assessment and apportionment of costs in light of the unsuccessful offer made by Roselands Services Pty Ltd under section 42A of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, commonly referred to as a Calderbank offer. The court needed to consider whether the offer was a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute and the implications of the offer on the costs order.

The CAT found that Roselands Services Pty Ltd’s Calderbank offer was not a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute, as it was made after the commencement of proceedings and was not coupled with an offer to discontinue the proceedings. Consequently, the CAT ordered that Roselands Services Pty Ltd pay the Lamas' costs on the ordinary basis for the period up to 29 March 2020 and on the indemnity basis from 30 March 2020. The court concluded that the unsuccessful Calderbank offer warranted the indemnity costs order, given the circumstances of the case.

The CAT further dispensed with the need for a hearing on costs pursuant to section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The tribunal confirmed that the unsuccessful Calderbank offer justified the indemnity costs order from 30 March 2020, and that all unagreed costs should be assessed in accordance with the legal costs legislation as defined in section 3A of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014.