Djordjevich v Rohrt [No 2]

[2022] VSCA 123

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Calderbank letters
5. › Whether rejection of offer unreasonable
6. › Whether letter offering no compromise can ground indemnity costs order
7. › Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority [No 2] (2005) 13 VR 435
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Hopeless case
5. › Whether application lacking merit justifies indemnity costs
6. › Whether application raising legal question of substance can be characterised as hopeless
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Counsel's fees
4. › Whether court should direct Costs Court to allow senior counsel fees in excess of scale
5. › Serious nature of subject matter alone insufficient

Quick Take

A Calderbank letter that merely invites discontinuance without offering any genuine compromise does not make the rejection of that invitation unreasonable for the purposes of an indemnity costs order, particularly where discontinuance would result in the same costs liability as the standard rule. The 'serious nature' of subject matter alone does not justify directing the Costs Court to allow senior counsel fees above scale.