Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Pollard, who sought damages for personal injuries sustained in an incident involving the defendant, Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the quantum of damages and the impact of a Calderbank offer made by the defendant, which the plaintiff did not accept. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's refusal to accept the defendant's Calderbank offer was unreasonable and how this affected the award of costs and damages. The court was required to consider the principles governing Calderbank offers, the circumstances under which such offers are made, and the factors that determine the reasonableness of the plaintiff's decision not to accept the offer. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff's decision was influenced by a genuine belief that the offer was inadequate and whether this belief was supported by objective evidence.

The court found that Pollard's decision not to accept the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable. The plaintiff's belief that the offer was inadequate was based on substantial evidence and a reasonable assessment of the case's merits. The court acknowledged the importance of protecting litigants from the potential detriment of making an unreasonable rejection of a Calderbank offer but held that Pollard's refusal was justified in the circumstances. As a result, Pollard was not penalised for costs associated with the unsuccessful offer, and the court proceeded to determine the appropriate quantum of damages for the injuries sustained.