Re Mandie; Mandie v Danos

The applicants, Mandie and another, sought leave to discontinue proceedings they had commenced against Danos. The applicants had earlier been granted leave to amend their pleadings to include a Part IV application. The defendants, Danos, did not oppose the application to discontinue. However, they sought an order that the applicants pay their costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis. The applicants argued that the defendants’ costs should be awarded on a standard rather than an indemnity basis. The dispute came before the court to determine the appropriate basis for the costs order.

The court considered whether the defendants’ costs should be awarded on a standard or indemnity basis. It examined the circumstances of the case, including the applicants' rejection of a settlement offer made by the defendants, and whether that rejection was unreasonable. The court noted that indemnity costs could be awarded if the offer was reasonable and the rejection was unreasonable. The court applied the principles set out in Ugly Tribe Co Pty Ltd v Sikola and Sidameneo (No 456) Pty Ltd v Ward & Magarey. It concluded that the defendants' costs should be awarded on a standard basis, finding that the rejection of the settlement offer was not unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court found that the defendants' costs should be assessed on a standard rather than an indemnity basis. It held that the rejection of the settlement offer was not unreasonable given the applicants' entitlement to discontinue the proceedings. The court observed that the defendants had not succeeded on the merits of the proceeding and that the rejection of the offer did not prejudice their position. The applicants were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding on a standard basis.