Truenergy Pty Ltd v Dispute Resolution Panel (No 2)

Truenergy Pty Ltd sued Dispute Resolution Panel in the Federal Court, arguing the Panel had incorrectly awarded costs. The dispute involved four defendants, one of whom made a Calderbank offer to Truenergy, inviting it to accept a small discount on the costs previously awarded by the Panel. Truenergy refused the offer, deeming it unclear and unreasonable, and the defendant sought an order for solicitor-client costs from Truenergy.

The court needed to decide whether the Calderbank offer was clear and reasonable and whether Truenergy’s refusal to accept the offer was unreasonable. The court examined the content of the offer, the context of the litigation, and the principles surrounding Calderbank offers. It assessed whether the offer represented a genuine element of compromise and if it was reasonable for Truenergy to reject the offer.

The court found the Calderbank offer was not clear or reasonable, as it did not clearly outline the terms of the compromise and did not provide a realistic basis for settlement. The court determined that it was not unreasonable for Truenergy to refuse the offer, given its ambiguous nature and lack of genuine compromise. Consequently, the defendant's application for solicitor-client costs was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of clarity and reasonableness in Calderbank offers and supported the plaintiff’s decision to refuse an offer that did not meet these standards.