Schofield v Hopman (No 2)

In Schofield v Hopman (No 2), the plaintiff, Mr Schofield, sought to recover indemnity costs from the defendants, the Hopmans, following a trial in which judgment was entered for the defendants. The parties had previously agreed that Mr Schofield would bear the costs of the defendants, but they disagreed on the basis on which those costs should be assessed. Specifically, they disagreed on whether the costs should be on an indemnity or standard basis for the period after the defendants' offer of settlement.

The legal issue before the court was whether the costs should be assessed on a standard or indemnity basis, considering the offer of settlement made by the defendants, which was more favourable than the outcome at trial. The court was required to determine the relevant considerations in deciding between the indemnity and standard basis for assessing costs in such circumstances.

The court found that the offer of settlement made by the defendants was more favourable than the outcome at trial, which was a relevant consideration in deciding the appropriate basis for assessing costs. However, the court held that the appropriate basis for assessing costs was the standard basis, as the offer of settlement did not significantly influence the outcome of the trial. The court reasoned that the defendants' offer was not so advantageous as to warrant indemnity costs, and the plaintiff's claim for indemnity costs was accordingly dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs on the standard basis, as agreed by the parties, and not on the indemnity basis as sought by the defendants. The court's decision was based on the consideration that the defendants' offer of settlement, while more favourable than the trial outcome, did not significantly influence the result, and thus did not warrant indemnity costs.