Singh v Harika (No 2)

In *Singh v Harika (No 2)*, the dispute concerned the recovery of costs following an appeal to the Supreme Court of Queensland. The original proceedings had been heard in the District Court, where the defendant had made a formal offer of compromise under Part 39A of the District Court Rules. This offer was for a sum greater than the judgment ultimately awarded to the plaintiff in the District Court. Consequently, the defendant was awarded costs from the date of the offer, as provided by rule 25 of Part 39A.

The appeal to the Supreme Court raised the issue of whether the plaintiff, as the appellant, was entitled to recover the costs of the appeal, despite the fact that the higher award obtained on appeal was still less than the defendant's original offer of compromise made in the District Court. The court was required to determine how the costs of the appeal should be allocated in light of the prior offer and the outcome of the appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the offer of compromise made in the District Court did not extend to the costs of the subsequent appeal. As the plaintiff, the appellant, had achieved a more favourable judgment on appeal than that awarded in the District Court, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs of the appeal. The court reasoned that the offer of compromise was specific to the proceedings in the District Court and did not encompass the costs incurred in a subsequent appellate proceeding where a different offer had not been made.