Where a defendant stands between a plaintiff and multiple cross-defendants, it may be reasonable for the defendant to refuse an offer from only one cross-defendant that would not resolve the overall litigation, even if the defendant ultimately obtains a less favourable result. An offer of compromise that fails to comply with rules for automatic costs consequences (e.g., Pt 19A r 10 for multiple defendants) may nevertheless be treated as a Calderbank letter in the exercise of the general costs discretion, but the fact that the offeree ends up worse off than if the offer had been accepted does not of itself warrant departure from the ordinary costs rule.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 209 later cases that cite this judgment.
34 of the 209 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.