Locke v Bova [No 2]

In Locke v Bova, the plaintiff sought indemnity costs following the defendant's unsuccessful defence of the action. The dispute centred on the application of the rules governing offers of compromise and the entitlement to indemnity costs. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs following the defendant's failed defence. The court had to consider whether there was a prima facie right to indemnity costs, subject to the court's discretion. A significant aspect of the case was the suggestion that the plaintiff's case changed after the defendant's offer of compromise, and whether a realistic assessment of the plaintiff's case showed a change "on the cards". Additionally, the court needed to consider the impact of the later Calderbank letter on the plaintiff's entitlement to indemnity costs.

The court held that the plaintiff had a prima facie right to indemnity costs, which was subject to the court's discretion. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff's case changed after the defendant's offer of compromise. Furthermore, the court determined that the later Calderbank letter did not negate the plaintiff's entitlement to indemnity costs. The court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the relevant legal principles.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for indemnity costs on an indemnity basis, subject to the usual qualifications and conditions.