Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [No 2] - [2025] QCA 15

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [No 2] [2025] QCA 15

PARTIES:

LUKE ANDREW SAWYER
(appellant)
v
STEEPLECHASE PTY LTD
ACN 109 392 449
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10373 of 2024
SC No 8878 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 142 (Crowley J)

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Boddice JA and Bradley J

ORDER:

The order made on 24 January 2025 that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs; but there be no order as to the costs of the notice of contention, remains.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURTS AND SETTLEMENTS – INFORMAL OFFERS AND CALDERBANK LETTERS – GENERALLY – where the application for an appeal was dismissed – where the Court ordered the appellant pay the respondent’s costs – where the respondent sought a further hearing to vary the order on costs – where the respondent gave a Calderbank offer to the appellant – where the Calderbank offer was given five days after the notice of appeal was filed – where the offer was open for eight days – whether the original costs order should be varied so that the appellant pay the respondents costs on an indemnity basis

COUNSEL:

T A Nielsen, with S B Smith, for the appellant
G A Thompson KC, with M T O’Sullivan, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Brighton Langley Law for the appellant
Mills Oakley for the respondent

THE COURT: On 24 January 2025, the Court ordered that the appeal and the cross-appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, but there be no order as to the costs of the notice of contention (which was treated as a cross-appeal). On 31 January 2025, the solicitor for the respondent contacted the Court of Appeal Registry to request that the respondent be heard to vary the order as to costs. The Court subsequently made directions for the filing of submissions, on the basis the matter would be dealt with on the papers.
The respondent seeks to have the order as to costs set aside, and replaced with an order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the indemnity basis. It relies upon a Calderbank offer, made five days after the notice of appeal was filed, inviting the appellant to discontinue the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs to that point. The offer was left open for eight days. The appellant submits the order as made by the Court should remain, on the basis that it was not unreasonable for the appellant to reject that offer, given the early stage at which it was made, which was before any material had been filed in the appeal, let alone the notice of contention (cross-appeal).
The Court is not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCA 15
Decision Date: 25 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sawyer, the appellant, filed an appeal against a decision made in the lower court, which was dismissed by Steeplechase Pty Ltd, the respondent. The original court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs. The respondent sought a further hearing to vary the order on costs, arguing that the appellant should pay their costs on an indemnity basis. The respondent gave a Calderbank offer to the appellant, which was made five days after the notice of appeal was filed and was open for eight days. The respondent argued that the original costs order should be varied to reflect the Calderbank offer.

The court examined the timing and nature of the Calderbank offer in relation to the procedural rules and the purpose of such offers. The court considered whether the offer was made in good faith and whether it was reasonable for the respondent to expect the appellant to accept it. The court also considered the potential impact of varying the costs order on the appellant and the respondent.

The court concluded that the Calderbank offer was not made in good faith and was not reasonable under the circumstances. The court held that the original costs order should not be varied. The court found that the respondent’s offer was not a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute but rather a tactic to pressure the appellant into accepting less favourable terms. The court emphasised the importance of genuine offers in the context of procedural fairness and the efficient use of court resources.

The court dismissed the application to vary the costs order, and the original order for the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs remained. The court did not make any order as to the costs of the notice of contention.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order made on 24 January 2025 that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs; but there be no order as to the costs of the notice of contention, remains.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [No 2] [2025] QCA 15
PARTIES:	LUKE ANDREW SAWYER (appellant) v STEEPLECHASE PTY LTD ACN 109 392 449 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10373 of 2024 SC No 8878 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 142 (Crowley J)
DELIVERED ON:	25 February 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Bowskill CJ and Boddice JA and Bradley J
ORDER:	The order made on 24 January 2025 that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs; but there be no order as to the costs of the notice of contention, remains.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURTS AND SETTLEMENTS – INFORMAL OFFERS AND CALDERBANK LETTERS – GENERALLY – where the application for an appeal was dismissed – where the Court ordered the appellant pay the respondent’s costs – where the respondent sought a further hearing to vary the order on costs – where the respondent gave a Calderbank offer to the appellant – where the Calderbank offer was given five days after the notice of appeal was filed – where the offer was open for eight days – whether the original costs order should be varied so that the appellant pay the respondents costs on an indemnity basis
COUNSEL:	T A Nielsen, with S B Smith, for the appellant G A Thompson KC, with M T O’Sullivan, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Brighton Langley Law for the appellant Mills Oakley for the respondent