Reeves v O'Riley

The appeal was brought by Reeves against O'Riley, with the dispute centering around the refusal of a Calderbank offer by the appellant and the subsequent refusal to award indemnity costs by the primary judge. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The court was required to determine whether the appellant's conduct in refusing the Calderbank offer was "plainly unreasonable" and whether the refusal warranted a departure from the usual order for costs. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the appellant had any real prospect of success and if costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis.

The court examined the circumstances under which the Calderbank offer was made and whether it was reasonable for the appellant to refuse it. The court also considered the factors relevant to assessing whether the appellant had a real prospect of success, including the strength of the evidence and the legal arguments presented. The court found that the appellant's refusal of the Calderbank offer was not plainly unreasonable and that there was a real prospect of success, albeit slim. Consequently, the court held that the refusal did not warrant a departure from the usual order for costs.

The appeal was dismissed, and the costs were to be determined in accordance with the original judgment. The court did not find the appellant's conduct to be plainly unreasonable and did not award indemnity costs. The court's decision was based on the evidence and arguments presented, and the refusal of the Calderbank offer did not significantly impact the overall outcome. The orders made by the primary judge remained unchanged.