A Calderbank offer that includes broad release terms lacking clarity, particularly where the release extends beyond the subject matter of the proceedings to encompass other potential claims, may be found to lack the clarity required for its rejection to be characterised as unreasonable. Where an offer lapses before the offeror provides adequate clarification of ambiguous terms, the offeree's failure to accept will not be treated as unreasonable. The inappropriateness of a statutory demand process does not of itself justify indemnity costs where the unsuccessful party was justified in seeking appellate clarification of the lower court's reasons.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.