Renbar Constructions Pty Ltd v Sader; Sader v Renbar Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the case, Renbar Constructions Pty Ltd was the plaintiff and Sader was the defendant, with Sader also filing a cross-claim against Renbar Constructions Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on issues of contract law and the enforcement of terms, including the calculation of costs associated with the litigation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff had improved upon its Calderbank offer, which, if it had, would entitle it to a proportion of its costs rather than a costs order following the event in the claim and cross-claim.

The court considered the principle established in Calderbank v Calderbank, which provides that a party making an offer of settlement is not to be penalised if the offer is not accepted and the party making the offer does not ultimately succeed to a greater extent than the offer. The court examined whether Renbar Constructions Pty Ltd's outcome was better than its Calderbank offer and if Sader's cross-claim was substantially successful. In determining whether there had been an improvement upon the Calderbank offer, the court assessed the substantive relief obtained by Renbar Constructions Pty Ltd against the terms of the offer and the final judgment.

The court concluded that Renbar Constructions Pty Ltd had bettered its Calderbank offer as the relief obtained was more favourable than that proposed in the offer. However, since Sader was also substantially successful on his cross-claim, the court determined that the appropriate order was for costs to follow the event in both the claim and the cross-claim. This decision was based on the balance of success and the principle that a party should not be penalised for making a settlement offer that is ultimately improved upon in the litigation outcome.

The final orders of the court were that costs were to follow the event in both the claim and the cross-claim. This means that Renbar Constructions Pty Ltd would not receive a proportion of its costs but rather that the overall costs would be determined based on the outcome of both the plaintiff's claim and Sader's cross-claim.