Singh v Rodden

Dilbagh Singh, the plaintiff, has commenced proceedings against Emma Grace Rodden and her insurer, Insurance Australia Limited, trading as NRMA Insurance, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants have sought an order that the court fix a date, time, and place for a compulsory conference between the plaintiff and the defendants. Singh has resisted the application, arguing that a compulsory conference should not be held at this time because his injuries have not stabilised, and he is not in a position to make a proper assessment of his damages. Singh's difficulty, as identified by his counsel, is that the mandatory final offers have statutory consequences as to costs, and where damages are awarded in court proceedings that are less than the plaintiff's mandatory final offer, the claimant may be required to pay the defendant's costs from the date of the offer and they may be indemnity costs. This is compounded by the statutory provisions which, unlike a Calderbank offer, give no opportunity to vary such an offer. The court held that the compulsory conference is a critical part of the regime established by the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act. However, the court found that the real vice is the requirement for mandatory final offers if settlement is not achieved at the conference. The court found that there is clear unfairness to both parties in that requirement where the basis of a fair estimate of damages is so uncertain. The court will make orders accordingly and will hear the parties as to the terms of the orders and as to costs.