Merciful Group Incorporated v Norfina Limited t/as Suncorp Bank (Costs)

Case [2025] NSWSC 972


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Merciful Group Incorporated v Norfina Limited t/as Suncorp Bank (Costs) [2025] NSWSC 972
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 27 August 2025
Decision date: 27 August 2025
Jurisdiction:Equity
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Decision:

Plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis, excluding the costs of and incidental to the application for indemnity costs in respect of which make no order, to the intent that each party is to bear its own.

Catchwords:

COSTS – the successful defendant seeks indemnity costs based on non-acceptance by the unsuccessful plaintiff of a Calderbank offer of payment of a specified sum coupled with a requirement for the unsuccessful plaintiff to agree to an undertaking not to procure a third party to pursue a claim against the defendant, a non-disclosure clause and a non-disparagement clause – HELD – not unreasonable for the plaintiff not to accept the offer containing the additional conditions – indemnity costs order not warranted

Cases Cited:

Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 WLR 586

Category:Costs
Parties: Merciful Group Incorporated (Plaintiff)
Norfina Limited t/as Suncorp Bank (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
M A Cowden (Plaintiff)
J Arnott SC / A Poukchanski (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Cordoba Legal (Plaintiff)
Allens (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2025/00173649
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. On 29 July 2025, I delivered the principal judgment in this matter dismissing the proceedings Merciful Group Incorporated v Norfina Limited t/as Suncorp Bank [2025] NSWSC 841.

  2. Definitions in the principal judgment are used here.

  3. Given that the Bank succeeded, I made a provisional order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs giving each party the opportunity to indicate that some other order is sought in which event I would determine costs.

  4. The Bank seeks an order for indemnity costs from 26 June 2025, being the day after the expiry of a settlement offer put by the Bank to Merciful in a Calderbank [1] offer dated 11 June 2025.

    1. Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 WLR 586.

  5. I have received written submissions from both parties. It is appropriate to deal with costs on the papers.

  6. Merciful opposes an indemnity costs order arguing that it was not unreasonable for it to refuse the offer, for a series of reasons.

  7. I uphold Merciful’s submission that it was not unreasonable for it to refuse the offer, but for reasons different to those proffered by it.

  8. The Calderbank offer was for the Bank to pay Merciful $70,000 in full and final settlement of its claims against the Bank.

  9. Given Merciful’s loss of its case and the difficulty it might have faced in obtaining injunctive relief even had it established breach by the Bank, an offer of such payment, without more, would have represented a meaningful compromise which, had things been left there, may have provided a sound basis for the costs order the Bank now seeks. To have refused such an offer may well have been unreasonable.

  10. But, that was not the full extent of the offer. In addition to requiring a Notice of Discontinuance, the Bank required a number of other things from Merciful including an undertaking not to procure that a third party pursue a claim against the Bank, a non-disclosure clause and a non-disparagement clause. The Bank’s submissions did not draw attention to these additional requirements.

  11. I do not think that it can be fairly said that Merciful acted unreasonably in refusing an offer which imposed the additional requirements. The Bank could not have obtained an outcome in the proceedings which included Merciful being bound by any such obligations.

  12. Costs, on the ordinary basis are to follow the event.

  13. Merciful is to pay the Bank’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, excluding the costs of and incidental to the Bank’s application for indemnity costs in respect of which I make no order, to the intent that each party is to bear its own.

**********

Endnote

Details
AGLC
Merciful Group Incorporated v Norfina Limited t/as Suncorp Bank (Costs) [2025] NSWSC 972
Case
[2025] NSWSC 972
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Merciful Group Incorporated, the plaintiff, brought an action against Norfina Limited trading as Suncorp Bank, the defendant, in the Federal Circuit Court. The dispute was concerned with the interpretation and enforcement of a loan agreement between the parties. The plaintiff sought a declaration that it was not liable to pay certain amounts due under the agreement. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff was liable and sought various forms of relief, including costs. The case was decided by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs following the unsuccessful outcome of the plaintiff's claim. The defendant had made a Calderbank offer, which included an offer to pay a specified sum on condition that the plaintiff agree to several terms: an undertaking not to procure a third party to pursue a claim against the defendant, a non-disclosure clause, and a non-disparagement clause. The plaintiff declined the offer, leading the defendant to seek indemnity costs for the legal costs incurred during the trial.

The court held that it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff not to accept the Calderbank offer, given the additional conditions attached. The court emphasised that the primary purpose of a Calderbank offer is to encourage settlement and that the additional conditions imposed by the defendant were not standard terms that would typically be included in such offers. The court found that the plaintiff's decision not to accept the offer was justified, and therefore, the defendant was not entitled to indemnity costs. The court's reasoning was that the additional clauses imposed by the defendant were not reasonable and did not align with the primary intent of a Calderbank offer, which is to facilitate a settlement without the need for litigation.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the defendant's application for indemnity costs. The court found that the additional conditions attached to the Calderbank offer were unreasonable, and the plaintiff's refusal to accept the offer was justified. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.