The Croatian Club Limited v Westwood Capital Pty Limited (No 2)

The Croatian Club Limited, a club and restaurant operator, brought an action against Westwood Capital Pty Limited, a company involved in the sale of property, for breach of contract. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Croatian Club Limited alleged that Westwood Capital Pty Limited failed to honour a settlement agreement concerning the sale of property. Westwood Capital Pty Limited denied the allegation and counterclaimed for breach of contract against The Croatian Club Limited. The court had to determine whether the costs of the litigation should be awarded on an indemnity basis from the date of a Calderbank offer made by The Croatian Club Limited to Westwood Capital Pty Limited. The court needed to consider whether the rejection of the offer was unreasonable and if the offer was made in good faith. The court also had to decide if there was any question of principle involved in the case.

The court found that the rejection of the offer was not unreasonable and that the offer was made in good faith. The court held that there was no question of principle involved in the case. As a result, the court ordered that costs should be paid on the ordinary basis. The court reasoned that the rejection of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable as there was a genuine dispute over the terms of the offer and the liability of the parties. The court noted that the offer was made in good faith and that the rejection did not amount to an abuse of the court process. The court also held that there was no question of principle involved in the case, and therefore, the costs should be ordered on the ordinary basis.

The final orders of the court were that the costs of the proceeding should be paid by the plaintiff on the ordinary basis. The court held that the rejection of the Calderbank offer was not unreasonable and that the offer was made in good faith. The court also found that there was no question of principle involved in the case. Therefore, the court ordered that the costs of the proceeding should be paid by the plaintiff on the ordinary basis. The court held that the costs should not be ordered on an indemnity basis from the date of the offer as the rejection of the offer was not unreasonable and there was no question of principle involved in the case.