Stokes v Ragless (No 2)

Stokes v Ragless (No 2) involved the plaintiff applying for costs of a defamation action on an indemnity basis under section 38 of the Defamation Act 2005 (SA). The plaintiff, Stokes, had filed four offers of settlement during the proceedings. At the time each offer was served, Ragless, the defendant, was unrepresented, and the letters serving the filed offers did not explain the implications of accepting or not accepting these offers. The court had to determine whether Stokes was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis and whether Ragless unreasonably failed to make a settlement offer or agree to any settlement offer proposed by Stokes.

The court held that it could not be assumed that an unrepresented defendant like Ragless would be aware of the Supreme Court Rules regarding filed offers or section 38 of the Defamation Act. Consequently, the court could not conclude that Ragless unreasonably failed to make or agree to any filed offer. Given all the circumstances, the court found that it was in the interests of justice for Stokes to have his costs on a party/party basis. The court also referred the question of whether the costs should be awarded by way of a lump sum to a Master for determination or adjudication.

This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that offers of settlement are properly communicated to unrepresented parties and the potential implications of not doing so. The court's ruling underscores the necessity for clarity in the communication of legal processes and the potential consequences for unrepresented defendants who fail to understand these processes. The referral to a Master for the determination of the lump sum aspect of the costs demonstrates the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and just outcome.