The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal the primary judge's refusal to order an apology under s 243 of the ACL, holding that where the deceased suffered no loss or damage and could not benefit from an apology, s 237 could not be engaged. On the cross-appeal regarding costs, the Court upheld the primary judge's identification of the 'event' as Mr Lau's vindication of his belief that his wife was mistreated (nominal damages representing establishment of a legal right), and upheld the 35% costs apportionment. However, the Court found the primary judge erred in dismissing the effect of Anglicare's 25 March 2025 Calderbank offer by reasoning that a financial offer was unlikely to induce settlement; the reasonableness of an offer cannot be judged solely by whether the recipient could ever have been induced to accept it, and Mr Lau's rejection was unreasonable where he obtained a significantly lesser financial result. The costs order was varied so that Anglicare pays 35% of Mr Lau's costs on the ordinary basis until 25 March 2025, and Mr Lau pays Anglicare's costs on an indemnity basis from that date.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.