Yamaguchi v Phipps (No 2)

In the matter of Yamaguchi v Phipps (No 2), the plaintiff, Yamaguchi, sought indemnity costs against the second defendant, Phipps, following a trial in the District Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on the rejection by Phipps of Yamaguchi's offer to settle under Rule 360 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and the subsequent outcome of the trial, where Yamaguchi secured an order no less favourable than the initial offer. The core legal issue was whether the defendant could demonstrate circumstances warranting a departure from the usual order for indemnity costs as stipulated by the rule.

The court examined the criteria under Rule 360, which mandates an order for indemnity costs unless the defendant can show that another order is appropriate. The court considered whether Phipps had presented sufficient grounds to justify a deviation from the standard indemnity cost order. It assessed the rationale behind the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's offer and the relative merits of each party's position throughout the litigation process.

The court concluded that Phipps had not provided adequate justification for an alternative cost order. Consequently, the plaintiff's entitlement to indemnity costs was upheld, aligning with the provisions of Rule 360. The court determined that the second defendant should bear the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be assessed on the indemnity basis.

The final order was that the second defendant, Phipps, pay Yamaguchi her costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be assessed on the indemnity basis.