Vass v Nationwide News Pty Ltd: 2020/112959 (No 2)

The case before the Federal Court of Australia involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Vass, against Nationwide News Pty Ltd. The plaintiff's claim was ultimately dismissed as false. In response, the defendant cross-claimed for rescission for fraud. A potential issue of reliance arose, and the defendant made an informal offer of compromise, which led to an application for indemnity costs. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff should be liable for the defendant's costs from the time of the informal offer of compromise, or from the time of the initial pleadings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was liable for the defendant's costs from the time of the informal offer of compromise, or from the time of the initial pleadings. The court had to consider the circumstances in which the offer of compromise was made, and whether the plaintiff had any basis for maintaining the cross-claim for rescission for fraud. The court also had to consider the potential issue of reliance, and whether this issue was significant enough to warrant the award of indemnity costs.

The court found that the plaintiff was liable for the defendant's costs from the time of the informal offer of compromise, rather than from the time of the initial pleadings. The court noted that the offer of compromise was made in good faith, and that the plaintiff had no reasonable basis for maintaining the cross-claim for rescission for fraud. The court also found that the potential issue of reliance was not significant enough to warrant the award of indemnity costs. The court concluded that the plaintiff's false defamation claim and cross-claim for rescission for fraud were without merit, and that the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs from the time of the informal offer of compromise.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs from the time of the informal offer of compromise, rather than from the time of the initial pleadings. The court also noted that the defendant was entitled to interest on the costs from the time of the offer, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any costs for the period prior to the offer. This decision highlights the importance of making offers of compromise in good faith, and the potential consequences of bringing false claims or cross-claims without merit.