Stanton v Fell (No 2)

Stanton v Fell (No 2) involved a defamation dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made defamatory statements about him, and the case was decided in the defendant's favour. The plaintiff sought to challenge the order that they pay the defendant's costs, arguing that the order should not be on an indemnity basis. The key legal issues were whether the plaintiff unreasonably failed to accept settlement offers from the defendant and whether the interests of justice required an order that the costs be paid on an indemnity basis.

The court considered the principles established in Haddon v Forsyth (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 693, which held that a plaintiff who unreasonably fails to accept a settlement offer may be ordered to pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis. The court found that the plaintiff's failure to accept the first and second offers made by the defendant was unreasonable. The plaintiff's arguments for not accepting the offers were not persuasive, and the court concluded that the plaintiff had more than merely failed in the proceedings. The court also found that the interests of justice required that the defendant be fully indemnified for the costs incurred.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis. The court found that the plaintiff's failure to accept the settlement offers was unreasonable, and the interests of justice required that the defendant be fully indemnified. The court also found that the plaintiff had more than merely failed in the proceedings, and the order for indemnity costs was appropriate. The court did not find it necessary to consider any other factors in making its decision.