Ward v Makhlouf

The case of Ward v Makhlouf involved Gillian Ward, the plaintiff, and Pierre Makhlouf and DG Development and Construction Pty Ltd, the defendants. The dispute arose out of a contractual relationship between the parties, with the plaintiff seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary judge was tasked with determining the merits of the claim and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the plaintiff's claims were successful and, if so, the appropriate allocation of costs under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014. Specifically, the court had to consider the effect of a Calderbank offer made by the plaintiff and whether the offer warranted an indemnity costs order in favour of the defendants. A Calderbank offer is an offer to settle made by a party without admitting liability, and it often has implications for the costs order in the event the offer is not accepted and the party making the offer does not succeed in the proceedings.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the plaintiff's claims were unsuccessful, and the Calderbank offer was a significant factor in determining the costs order. The court noted that the offer was genuine and made in good faith, and while it did not warrant an indemnity costs order, it did justify a costs order in favour of the defendants from a specific date onwards. The court held that the plaintiff should bear the costs from the date immediately following the making of the Calderbank offer. Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs from 27 August 2016, while the defendants were to bear the costs up until 26 August 2016.

In summary, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claims were unsuccessful and that the Calderbank offer warranted a costs order in favour of the defendants from a certain date. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs from 27 August 2016, whereas the defendants were to bear the costs up until 26 August 2016. Any costs not agreed upon were to be assessed under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014.