The Court held that CIT's rejection of Balfran's Calderbank offer of 40% contribution was unreasonable, given that the plaintiff's evidence at the time the offer was made clearly established CIT's significant responsibility for the plaintiff's injuries, and CIT was ultimately found liable for 50%. Indemnity costs were ordered against CIT from the expiry of the offer. However, where both defendants had filed cross-notices claiming contribution or indemnity and each obtained orders against the other, each was ordered to bear its own costs of prosecuting the contribution application.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.