Oliver v Roberts (No 2)

This matter concerned an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant, Oliver, sought to recover costs from the respondent, Roberts, following a judgment on appeal. The central dispute revolved around the application of Rule 1010 of the *Court Procedures Rules 2006* (ACT), which governs offers of compromise and the subsequent award of costs.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellant's claim had changed significantly after an offer of compromise was made, and if there were any exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the usual cost orders. Additionally, the Court was required to determine the appropriate costs order for the appeal itself, considering the extent of the appellant's success on appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's claim had not changed significantly after the offer of compromise was made. Furthermore, the Court determined that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify deviating from the general rule that costs follow the event when an offer of compromise is not accepted and the judgment obtained is no less favourable than the offer. Consequently, the Court ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs at first instance on a solicitor-client basis for the entirety of the proceedings. The respondent was also ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal on a party-party basis.