The Court held that an offer of compromise under UCPR r 20.26 that fails to specify the proposed orders for disposal of the claim is invalid and does not attract the indemnity costs consequences under r 42.14, following Farmer v Broadspectrum, because r 20.27(3) permits entry of judgment without notice upon acceptance, making clarity of proposed orders essential. However, the Court exercised its discretion to award indemnity costs from the date of a separate Calderbank offer, finding that AWI's failure to respond to the plaintiff's amended September offer — which addressed all issues AWI had raised about the original offer — constituted unreasonable rejection in circumstances where the plaintiff ultimately bettered the offer at trial by approximately $123,526. The case confirms that a Calderbank offer need not propose specific consent orders, unlike a formal offer of compromise, and that an offeree's silence in the face of an amended offer addressing its stated concerns supports an inference of unreasonable rejection.
The full text is available to signed-in members.