Vaughan v Hoskovich

The matter of Vaughan v Hoskovich came before the court in relation to an application to set aside costs orders in probate proceedings. The plaintiff, Vaughan, sought to have the costs orders set aside on the basis that the defendant, Hoskovich, had rejected offers of compromise made by Vaughan. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that indemnity costs should be awarded from the date of the offers of compromise. The court had to determine whether the offers of compromise, which were not made under Part 20, Division 4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, could still result in an award of indemnity costs. This was because the offers were not exclusive of costs.

The court examined whether the questions raised by the proceedings were finely balanced and whether the deceased had effectively caused the litigation by not making a will. The court found that the defendant did not act unreasonably in not accepting the Calderbank offers of compromise. Given that the issues in the proceedings were finely balanced and that the deceased had not made a will, the court concluded that the defendant's decision not to accept the offers was not unreasonable. Consequently, the court determined that the costs orders should not be set aside.

In light of the court's findings, the application to set aside the costs orders was dismissed. The court ruled that the defendant was not liable to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application and from the date of the offers of compromise. The decision underscores the importance of the nature of the offers of compromise and the circumstances of the case in determining whether indemnity costs are appropriate.