The Court held that CIT's rejection of Balfran's Calderbank offer of 40% contribution was unreasonable in circumstances where the plaintiff's unchallenged evidence clearly established CIT's significant role in directing the unsafe work method, and the ultimate finding was 50% contribution against CIT. Indemnity costs were ordered against CIT from the expiry of the offer. On the costs of prosecuting the cross-contribution notices, the Court ordered each defendant bear its own costs given both had filed notices and each obtained an order against the other.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.