McLennan v Meyer Vandenberg (No 2)

McLennan v Meyer Vandenberg (No 2) concerned a cross-appeal and an appeal against a costs order made by a primary judge. The dispute arose from a claim brought by McLennan against Meyer Vandenberg.

The court was required to determine two primary issues concerning costs. Firstly, whether the inclusion of equitable compensation in the statement of claim, even if not pursued, insulated the appellant from the application of rule 1725(2) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). Secondly, the court considered whether it was reasonable for the appellant to reject a Calderbank offer given the weakness of the pleaded case. The court also had to determine the costs of the substantive appeal, specifically in relation to the appellant's limited success in obtaining pre-judgment interest, and whether the rejection of an offer by the respondent to pay pre-judgment interest was consistent with section 5A of the Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT).

The court held that the inclusion of equitable compensation in the statement of claim did not prevent the application of rule 1725(2) when that relief was not pursued. Furthermore, it was deemed unreasonable to reject a Calderbank offer when the pleaded case was weak. Regarding the substantive appeal, the appellant was only successful in obtaining pre-judgment interest, which would have been awarded by the primary judge had it been drawn to their attention. The court found that the ground of appeal concerning interest was pursued as a "costs insurance policy" and that the rejection of the respondent's offer to pay pre-judgment interest was inconsistent with section 5A of the Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT). Consequently, costs were awarded to the respondent on the issues in relation to which it was successful.

The court made orders regarding the costs of the cross-appeal and the substantive appeal, with specific details provided in paragraphs [51] and [72] of the judgment.