Marlow v Walsh (No 2)

[2009] TASSC 40

Supreme Court of Tasmania

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Offer of compromise
4. › Effect of offer of compromise on costs at first instance
5. › Whether costs order under r289(2) should be disturbed on appeal where judgment sum increased but still below offer
6. › Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r289(2)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Offer of compromise
4. › Whether offer of compromise rule applies to costs of appeal
5. › Whether costs 'in respect of the claim' includes appeal costs
6. › Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r289(2)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs of appeal
4. › Departing from general rule that costs follow the event
5. › Apportionment where appellant succeeds on some grounds but fails on others
6. › Relevance of unaccepted offer of compromise
7. › Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r672(6)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Offer of compromise
4. › Whether unreasonableness of rejection must be proved
5. › Distinction between Calderbank offers and offers of compromise under rules of court
6. › Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r289(2)

Quick Take

Under r289(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), a party relying on an offer of compromise need not prove that the offeree acted unreasonably in rejecting it; the rule may apply even where rejection was reasonable at the time. An unaccepted offer of compromise is a relevant factor in the exercise of the appellate court's discretion as to costs of the appeal, whether or not r289(2) directly applies to appeal costs. The question whether r289(2) extends to appeal costs was left open.