In the ACT, a primary judge exercising costs discretion following a Calderbank offer is entitled to take into account the existence of the rules-based offer of compromise regime as one factor, including the desirability of consistency between the two regimes, provided the rules are not treated as dictating the outcome. A finding that a plaintiff unreasonably rejected a Calderbank offer does not automatically compel a costs order in the defendant's favour; the court retains a broad discretion to weigh all relevant factors.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.