Spaulding v Eirth (No 2)

In *Spaulding v Eirth (No 2)*, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered an appeal concerning the costs of an action and a cross-appeal. The dispute arose from an earlier costs order made on 2 April 2015, which directed the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the action.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the original costs order was appropriate, particularly in light of an offer of compromise made by the appellant. The court was required to determine the extent to which the appellant's offer to settle, made on 13 November 2013, should influence the allocation of costs between the parties for the action and the appeal.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the offer of compromise made by the appellant on 13 November 2013 was a significant factor in determining the appropriate costs order. The court applied the principle that where a party makes an offer of compromise that is more favourable than the ultimate outcome for the other party, the court may order that the offering party recover their costs from the date of the offer. Consequently, the court set aside the original order and made a revised order. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the action up to and including 13 November 2013, while the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the action from 14 November 2013 onwards. Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.