Simmons v Rockdale City Council (No 2)

In Simmons v Rockdale City Council (No 2), the plaintiff, Mr Simmons, was successful in his claim against one of two defendants, Rockdale City Council, but not against the other, the Minister for Police. The plaintiff sought costs from the successful defendant and an order for indemnity costs from the Minister for Police, who had made a previous offer of compromise. The plaintiff's claim for indemnity costs from the Minister hinged on whether the offer of compromise was a factor in the court's consideration of the costs order. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to a Bullock or Sanderson order concerning its costs liability to the successful defendant, and whether the Minister was entitled to an order for indemnity costs from the date of its offer of compromise.

The court identified that the plaintiff was entitled to a Bullock order, which permits the plaintiff to recover costs from the successful defendant up to the time of the offer of compromise. The court found that the offer of compromise was not a factor in the consideration of the costs order, as it did not influence the outcome of the proceedings. The court also found that the Minister was not entitled to an order for indemnity costs from the date of its offer of compromise, as the plaintiff had not unreasonably rejected the offer. Instead, the plaintiff was entitled to a Sanderson order, which permits the plaintiff to recover costs from the unsuccessful party from the date of the offer of compromise.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a Bullock order in respect of its costs liability to the successful defendant, and that the Minister was not entitled to an order for indemnity costs from the date of its offer of compromise. The court ordered that the plaintiff recover its costs from the successful defendant up to the time of the offer of compromise, and that the plaintiff recover its costs from the Minister from the date of the offer of compromise. The court further ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the unsuccessful defendant. The court's decision provides clarity on the application of Bullock and Sanderson orders in cases where one defendant makes an offer of compromise and the plaintiff is successful against only one defendant.