Marhaba v Chen (No 2)

Marhaba v Chen (No 2) involved the plaintiff seeking to have the costs of a personal injury claim paid by the defendants. The original judgment awarded the plaintiff a sum less than the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates Court. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate percentage of costs to be paid by the defendants under rule 1725 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). The plaintiff’s claim, while complex, had an exaggerated quantum, and despite the plaintiff's success, the final award was less favourable than a previous offer made by the defendants.

The legal issues before the court included the application of rule 1725 and the appropriateness of the alternative costs order, given the nature of the claim and the offers of compromise. The court considered whether the plaintiff had acted unreasonably in rejecting the defendants' offers and whether these offers were open for a reasonable period under the rules. The court found that the offers were not open for a reasonable period and it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to reject the offers in the circumstances.

In its reasoning, the court noted the complexity of the claim and the exaggerated nature of the quantum. The court also found that the period within which the plaintiff could accept the offers was unreasonably short. Given these factors, the court varied the original order to reflect that the defendants were to pay 85% of the plaintiff's costs. This decision balanced the plaintiff's success with the need to consider the reasonableness of the costs awarded in light of the circumstances of the case.