› Non-compliance with formal requirements of rules
Practice and Procedure
› Costs
› Calderbank Offers
› Whether rejection unreasonable
› Offer including additional conditions outside scope of proceedings
Practice and Procedure
› Costs
› Costs Assessment
› Dispute between solicitors and former clients
› Operation of s 302 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT)
Practice and Procedure
› Costs
› Costs Assessment
› Costs disclosure non-compliance
› Court's discretion to otherwise order
Quick Take
1An offer of compromise that references the wrong part of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) and fails to state it is made under the applicable part (here Pt 2.10 via r 5001) does not comply with r 1002(2)(d) and is not effective to enliven indemnity costs consequences under r 1010.
2For a Calderbank offer, the test is whether rejection of the offer was unreasonable, not whether the terms of the offer were reasonable; an offer that includes additional conditions outside the scope of the proceedings (such as withdrawal of caveats converting a secured debt to unsecured), is presented as a costs-inclusive package making quantum unclear, and is open for only three days may not be unreasonable to reject.
3Under s 302(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT), where a law practice has failed to comply with costs disclosure obligations in Div 3.2.3, the court's discretion to 'otherwise order' permits apportionment of assessment costs to reflect the protracted conduct of the assessment process and the limited materiality of the non-compliances to the final assessed amount.
