Vale v Eggins (No 2)

In *Vale v Eggins (No 2)*, the dispute concerned the consequences of a party refusing an offer of compromise made in accordance with Part 19A of the District Court Rules. The appeal was heard by Beazley JA, McColl JA, and Bryson JA.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent, who had refused an offer of compromise and subsequently obtained a less favourable result at trial, should be ordered to pay the appellant's costs. This required the court to consider the application of the costs rules under Part 19A, particularly in light of the respondent's argument that there were exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the usual order. The court also had to assess the relevance of the failure to serve expert reports prior to the offer being made and any significant changes in the case after the offer was extended.

The Court of Appeal determined that the respondent's failure to serve expert reports before the offer of compromise was made was a significant factor. This failure meant the respondent was not in a position to properly assess the offer, and it was relevant to the decision of whether to accept it. Furthermore, the court found that there had not been a significant change in the case after the offer was made that would justify the respondent's refusal. Consequently, the usual consequences of refusing an offer of compromise, which are less favourable than the offer's terms, were applied.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs at trial and on the appeal.