Robinson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

The plaintiffs, Robinson and another, sought indemnity costs against the defendants, including the Commissioner of Police, following a trial in which they succeeded on claims of false imprisonment and assault against the police officers. The matter was heard in the Federal Court. The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs were entitled to indemnity costs despite succeeding on a case that differed from the one they had advanced in an offer to settle, and whether the plaintiffs could be granted leave to enter judgment against the bankrupt and in liquidation defendants.

The court found that the plaintiffs had succeeded on a case that was materially different from the one they had presented in their offer to settle. As such, the court denied the plaintiffs' application for indemnity costs against the first and second defendants. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' application for leave to enter judgment against the defendants who were bankrupt and in liquidation, as well as their request for an order that these defendants indemnify them against the costs of entering judgment in favour of the other defendants. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a Bullock order, as their success was based on a different case than the one they had advanced in their offer to settle.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the first and second defendants for the interlocutory application filed on 29 May 2013 on an indemnity basis. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' application for leave to enter judgment against the third, fourth, seventh, and eighth defendants. Additionally, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the seventh defendant's costs for the orders sought in the interlocutory application filed on 26 April 2013 to enter judgment against the seventh defendant. The first and second defendants were to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding up until judgment, subject to credit for costs incurred in defending the abandoned claim for damages for personal injury. There was no order as to the costs of the interlocutory application filed on 26 April 2013 between the plaintiffs, the first and second defendants, the third and fourth defendants, and the eighth defendant.