Rahme v Satouris (No 2)

The case of Rahme v Satouris (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs sought costs on an indemnity basis after rejecting a less favourable offer of compromise before the joinder of another defendant. The defendants, who were insured under a single policy of insurance, contended that the plaintiffs' rejection of the initial offer should preclude them from claiming costs on an indemnity basis.

The central legal issues were whether the plaintiffs' rejection of a less favourable offer of compromise before the joinder of another defendant barred them from claiming costs on an indemnity basis and whether the subsequent offers of compromise after the joinder could affect the assessment of costs. The court had to determine if the initial rejection of the offer of compromise had any bearing on the costs claim following the joinder of another defendant and the implications of further offers of compromise on the costs assessment.

The court held that the plaintiffs' rejection of the initial offer of compromise did not preclude them from claiming costs on an indemnity basis after the joinder of another defendant. The court found that the initial rejection did not constitute a waiver of their right to seek better terms and that subsequent offers of compromise, including those made after the joinder, should be considered in the costs assessment. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to costs on an indemnity basis, taking into account all relevant offers of compromise.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs on an indemnity basis, considering all relevant offers of compromise made throughout the proceedings.