Lollis v Loulatzis (No 2)

In Lollis v Loulatzis (No 2), the parties disputed the amount of costs to be awarded following a successful claim for damages. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to recover costs from the defendants, who had been found liable for damages in a prior trial. The defendants contested the quantum of costs claimed, arguing that the plaintiff's conduct had unnecessarily protracted the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was unreasonable for the defendants not to have accepted three offers made by the plaintiff under Calderbank. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff's conduct had unnecessarily prolonged the trial and, if so, whether this warranted a reduction in the costs awarded to the plaintiff. The court also had to address the apportionment of costs between the claim and counterclaim, as well as the issue of reserved costs.

The court found that it was unreasonable for the defendants not to have accepted the Calderbank offers, which were deemed reasonable by the court. However, the court also determined that the plaintiff's conduct had unnecessarily protracted the trial, and therefore, a reduction in the costs awarded to the plaintiff was warranted. The court further held that the costs should be apportioned between the claim and counterclaim, with specific amounts reserved for future determination. The court's decision reflected a careful consideration of both the Calderbank offers and the conduct of the parties during the proceedings.