1Where a plaintiff's knowledge of matters undermining their own case (here, physical capacity inconsistent with claimed disability) is uniquely within their knowledge at the time offers of compromise are made, pressing the claim regardless can constitute 'relevant delinquency' justifying indemnity costs under r 1012 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT).
2Late disclosure of surveillance evidence pursuant to a court order permitting withholding does not deprive a plaintiff of the opportunity to fairly consider offers of compromise where the matters captured were already within the plaintiff's own knowledge.
3Two genuine offers of compromise made in compliance with r 1002, combined with the plaintiff's unreliable evidence and abandonment of key expert evidence, supported departure from the default solicitor-and-client basis under r 1012 to indemnity costs.
