![]() The costs order sought would provide a fairer result to the law firm. Calderbank letter template professional#Mega Well’s case against the law firm was damaging to their professional reputation. With the underlying objectives in Order 1A, rule 1 in mind, the Court encourages dispute settlement, and therefore failure to respond constructively to a reasonable Calderbank offer, coupled with the subsequent failure to beat the offer, should weigh heavily against the offeree on costs. In light of the law firm’s merits analysis, it was unreasonable for Mega Well to have failed to engage in any negotiation with the law firm to put an end to this part of Mega Well’s case. It would have been advisable for Mega Well to accept certainly the 2 nd Offer. The merits analysis set out in the 1 st Offer was largely vindicated by the Court as shown in the judgment. It is reasonably well-established that the Court’s discretionary power to award indemnity costs can be triggered if a party fails to beat a Calderbank offer. Under the 2 nd Calderbank offer (2 nd Offer), the law firm suggested that Mega Well’s counterclaim be dismissed with no order as to costs. ![]() The letter containing the 1 st Offer set out an analysis of the merits of Mega Well’s counterclaim. Under the 1 st Calderbank offer (1 st Offer), the law firm offered to have Mega Well’s counterclaim against the law firm dismissed with payment of 50% of the law firm’s costs. Upon the law firm’s application to vary the costs order nisi, the Court, in exercising its discretion as to costs, considered (i) the underlying objectives set out in Order 1A, rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court (including “to facilitate the settlement of disputes”), (ii) two Calderbank offers made by the law firm which Mega Well failed to beat, (iii) the merits analysis which the law firm drew to Mega Well’s attention, (iv) the conduct of the parties, and (v) damage to the law firm’s reputation, and ordered Mega Well to pay for the law firm’s costs in the proceedings on an indemnity basis. In Bright Gold Limited v Mega Well Development Limited (HCA 2194/2011), Hon Anthony Chan J, amongst other things, dismissed Mega Well’s counterclaim against a law firm previously acting for it in the sale and purchase of a landed property and made a costs order nisi that Mega Well pay for the law firm’s costs (on a party and party basis). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |