Moneytech Finance Pty Ltd v Diamond Made Pty Ltd

The evidence on the costs application

1. Ms Peck's affidavit evidence addressed the correspondence between the parties relevant to efforts to compromise the proceedings that I have set out below.
2. The plaintiffs' relied upon the affidavit of their solicitor John Malcolm Douglas Fairgray dated 19 March 2019 which exhibited two lever arch folders comprising nearly 1,000 pages of documents. This material was delivered to my chambers on behalf of the plaintiffs on 28 March 2019. The documents exhibited to this affidavit commence on or around 20 December 2017. None of the exhibited documents address the time period from the commencement of these proceedings until late December 2017. The documents were largely copies of all of the documents provided to the plaintiffs by way of subpoena and discovery from March 2018 onwards. Mr Fairgray's explanation for the delay was that he did not receive a number of relevant documents from Mr Osborne until 13 November 2018 and verification of some of them did not take place until 7 December 2018. Reliance was placed on the date that the liquidators were subpoenaed and the length of time it took for the discovery process to be completed.
3. A further affidavit of Laura Peck, dated 21 March 2019, was relied upon in reply. She clarified certain aspects of the evidence regarding discovery and noted that documents were produced on subpoena as early as 6 April 2018.
4. Before turning to set out a brief chronology, I should note that it is most unsatisfactory for a party defending an application for costs to rely upon such a large quantity of material. Having perused the material, I am satisfied that most of it was provided not because the contents of the documentation were relevant but, rather, to show the amount of documentation involved and how late it was that the plaintiffs received it. I was familiar with some of this documentation from the hearing in this matter. On this basis, I have not considered it necessary to read every page of every document that was provided by the plaintiffs on this costs application. I have otherwise read and considered all of the material provided by the parties.

Chronology

1. These proceedings were commenced by Moneytech on 16 December 2015. There were initially seven defendants sued by Moneytech but by the time Mr Osborne's matter came on for hearing on 12 March 2019 he was the only active defendant left in this matter. I have set out the details of the other parties in my previous judgment at [2]-[11].
2. When the proceedings commenced in 2015, Moneytech was the only plaintiff. It had no standing to bring the proceedings as it had no contractual relationship with Diamond Made. It was not until nearly two years later that it made application to join its SPV Diamond Made Trading as a second plaintiff. That application was opposed but on 23 June 2017 Button J made an order joining the proper plaintiff to the proceedings: Moneytech Finance Pty Ltd v Diamond Made Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 836.
3. Further, when the proceedings were first commenced Mr Osborne was incorrectly named as "Andrew Kent Osborne t/as Pizza Pasta Please Campbelltown". There was no evidence that Andrew Kent is or ever was a director of that business. On 9 February 2016, soon after the proceedings were commenced against, Mr Osborne wrote to Moneytech and offered to meet with them to "explain the errors in the filing" asserting that he had been mistakenly joined as a party in these proceedings.
4. On 11 February 2016, Mr Osborne prepared and filed his own defence. In it he pleaded that he did not have any contractual relationship with Diamond Made and that he did not own Pizza Pasta Please Campbelltown.
5. On 17 February 2016, Mr Osborne again advised Moneytech's solicitors that he had been mistakenly joined in the proceedings. It was suggested that the mistake had arisen from a misapprehension that Mr Osborne was an owner or director of PPP Campbelltown when he was not.
6. On 22 February 2016, Mr Osborne repeated his complaint in further correspondence. He suggested that a "simple ASIC search will reveal that I have no association with PPP Campbelltown," apart from being the landlord of premises leased to associated companies of its director.
7. On 13 May 2016, Mr Osborne's solicitors wrote to Moneytech explaining why it had no cause of action against him and why he should not have been joined in these proceedings. A copy of this letter was annexed to Ms Peck's affidavit of 13 March 2019. It was made in accordance with the principles set out in Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 WLR 586. The letter was headed "Without Prejudice" and stated the following: "(a)… our client never entered into a contract with the First Defendant. (b) Secondly, as at 26 March 2015 there was no contract yet in existence between the First Defendant and PPP Campbelltown Pty Ltd to undertake the Fit-Out work … (d) Fourthly,… the Third Defendant, was aware that our client was only contributing to part (not all) of the total cost of the Fit-Out…"
8. There was no response to this letter.
9. A further letter was sent by Ms Peck to Moneytech's lawyer that same day which included the following: "… he proposed amended Statement of Claim which your client is seeking leave to file… contain serious deficiencies and is liable to be struck out…. The terms of the underlying contract pursuant to which the First Defendant is said to provided goods and services to our client, and the facts which are said to have given rise to a right to render an invoice and receive payment, must also be pleaded."
10. On 22 June 2016, Ms Peck caused a letter to be sent to Moneytech's lawyers stating, inter alia, "a number of aspects of the present draft ASOC are not satisfactory pleaded or particularised…."
11. On 4 November 2016, Mr Peck caused a letter to be sent to Moneytech's lawyers stating "….Your clients have not addressed those aspects of the draft pleading which are not satisfactory pleaded or particularised as identified in a letter dated 22 June 2016".
12. on 25 January 2017, Ms Peck caused another letter to be sent to Moneytech's lawyers which stated the following: "… Given these deficiencies and the fact that our client raised many of the months ago, only for them to be ignored by your clients, if your clients file a motion seeking leave to file the Draft ASOC, our client will rely on this letter in previous correspondence in seeking indemnity costs."
13. On 22 March 2017, the application to amend the statement of claim was heard by Button J and on 23 June 2017 Button J made the orders referred to above.
14. On 5 September 2017, Ms Peck caused a further "Without Prejudice" letter to be sent to the plaintiffs' lawyer including an offer in accordance with the principle set out in Calderbank v Calderbank. An explanation was sought as to why Mr Osborne was liable and it was noted that it must be "apparent" that had basic investigations been undertaken prior to commencing proceedings this would have revealed that the proceedings against Mr Osborne were destined to fail and should not have been commenced.
15. On 14 September 2017, the plaintiffs' lawyer wrote to Ms Peck requesting an extension of time to accept the offer.
16. No response was received within the extended time to receive the offer but on 26 October 2017 the plaintiffs wrote a "Without Prejudice" letter to Mr Osborne formally rejecting the offer and counter offering to settle the proceedings for $374,395. This letter included an assertion that the offer made by Mr Osborne did not "reflect the strength of our clients' claim against your client".
17. On 29 November 2017, Ms Peck caused a further letter to be sent to the plaintiffs' lawyers stating, inter alia: ".. Our client considers that, on the evidence your client has served, your clients cannot possibly succeed on their pleaded case. That being so, there is no occasion for our client to serve any evidence in answer. Our client again invites your client to abandon it [sic] proceedings against our client. Should that not occur before the next directions hearing, our client will seek a hearing date."
18. On 4 December 2017, Ms Peck received a letter from the plaintiffs' lawyers asserting that their client did not agree that it "cannot succeed on its pleaded case". The letter also confirmed that subpoenas were to be issued and that any application by Mr Osborne to have the matter listed for an interim hearing would be opposed.
19. On 5 December 2017, Ms Peck caused two letters to be written to the plaintiffs' solicitors. The first of them was in a form contemplated by r 20.6 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ("UCPR") and was headed "Without Prejudice". It included the following: "For the reasons set out in our previous correspondence and our client's Amended Defence filed on 29 August 2017, your clients' claim against our client is fundamentally misconceived. Your letter of 26 October 2017 fails to grapple with the matters we have raised in previous correspondence. Further, the evidence-in-chief by your clients does not support the allegations made in the Amended Statement of Claim and demonstrates why your clients case is bound to fail. … If this offer is not accepted our client intends to rely, at the conclusion of the hearing, on this letter and enclose Notice of Offer of Compromise in seeking indemnity costs."
20. The second letter sent by Ms Peck to the plaintiffs' solicitors on 5 December 2017 included the following: "… The proceedings against our client have been on foot for almost two years. They are destined to fail for the reasons we have ready explained on multiple occasions and in respect of which your clients have provided no answer. It is time for the proceedings against our client to be brought to an end. Please let us have your clients' available dates for a final hearing early next year."
21. There was no reply to this letter and on 31 January 2018 a further "Without Prejudice" letter was sent to the plaintiffs' lawyers.
22. On 7 February 2018, a further "Without Prejudice" letter was sent to the plaintiffs' lawyers enclosing short minutes of order.
23. On 26 April 2018, the Court made orders noting that Mr Osborne was ready to proceed to hearing. The matter was listed for hearing commencing on 20 November 2018.
24. On 6 September 2018, Mr Osborne requested further and better particulars of the plaintiffs' case against him.
25. On 7 September 2018, Ms Peck received a "Without Prejudice" letter from the plaintiffs' lawyers repeating the offer made in its letter of 26 October 2017.
26. The parties attended a court appointed mediation on 10 September 2018.
27. Particulars of how the plaintiffs brought their case were finally provided on 18 September 2018.
28. The plaintiffs received Mr Osborne's evidence on 13 November 2018.
29. Ms Peck caused a further "Without Prejudice" letter to be sent to the plaintiffs' lawyers on 13 November 2018.
30. On 20 November 2018, the proceedings were listed before Campbell J for hearing. Mr Osborne was ordered to provide supplementary discovery in verified form and ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment. The hearing was adjourned and relisted on 11 March 2019: Moneytech Finance Pty Ltd v Diamond Made Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1785.
31. On 29 November 2018, Ms Peck caused a further letter to be sent to the plaintiffs lawyers stating "our client again invites your client to abandon it [sic] proceedings against our client".

Mr Osborne's submissions

1. It was submitted that the plaintiffs' claim against Mr Osborne was always destined to fail. Reliance was placed on the fact that it was not until 18 September 2018 that any coherent thesis was advanced as to why Mr Osborne could have any liability to the plaintiffs or either of them.
2. Correspondence was relied upon to show that on 12 May 2016 Moneytech refused to provide any particulars of its claim and continued to do so until March 2017. Even though the plaintiffs' solicitors sent a detailed letter on 26 October 2017, it was submitted that it did not grapple with the substance of the case.
3. It was submitted that Mr Osborne should be reimbursed for all of the costs he has incurred in successfully defending these proceedings ("other than those that appear to have been unreasonably incurred or appear to be of an unreasonable amount" and the costs order made by Campbell J on 20 November 2018). It was said to be unfair for Mr Osborne to be required to bear the difference between the ordinary basis and indemnity basis in circumstances with the proceeding should never have been commenced.
4. Somewhat dramatically, it was submitted that "the chickens have ultimately come home to roost". That is, Moneytech decided to advance money on the face of Invoice 238 and then commenced and pursued these proceedings without ensuring that the amount of Invoice 238 was actually payable. This has caused massive amounts of costs to be incurred in relation to a supposed debt that did not actually exist.
5. It was accepted that the plaintiffs faced forensic difficulties in deciding whether to commence and pursue these proceedings against Mr Osborne as they were not in a position to know all of the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue of Invoice 238. Despite this, it was submitted that those forensic difficulties provided no excuse for commencing and pursuing proceedings which could not succeed on the available evidence.
6. In addition to relying upon the manner in which the proceedings were conducted and the inevitable failure of them it was also submitted that the plaintiffs adopted an unreasonable approach in response to attempts to compromise the proceedings.

The plaintiff's submissions

1. The plaintiffs relied on the fact that they were strangers to the transaction. This was said to undermine Mr Osborne's submission that they should have known that there was no contract. It was further submitted that they were not able to get the relevant documents until late in 2018 and that preliminary discovery was not the appropriate procedural step to take.
2. It was submitted that the first subpoena was not issued until 20 December 2017 and documents were still being received as at 13 November 2018. It was noted that the plaintiffs had not received any of these documents at the time they received either of the Calderbank letters and thus it was reasonable to reject them.
3. As for the letters of compromise, it was submitted that the letter of 13 May 2016 was to discontinue proceedings with no order for costs in that matter and the letter of 5 September 2017 was to discontinue proceedings and pay 80% of Mr Osborne's costs.
4. It was submitted that, unlike a formal offer of compromise under UCPR r 20.26, a Calderbank offer does not give rise to a presumption in favour of ordering of costs on an indemnity basis: Jones v Bradley (No.2) [2003] NSWCA 258. It was submitted that the presumption is still that costs follow the event and the question of indemnity costs is one for the Court's discretion. Furthermore, in order to rely upon the Calderbank letter the terms of the offer should contain a real and genuine element of compromise: Leichardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 at [23].
5. The plaintiffs contended that the offers of compromise were not genuine and it was not unreasonable to reject them. It was submitted that the Court ought to consider all of the circumstances of the case, including the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's case; these may not have been apparent to the parties at the time the offer was made. The danger of "juggling the reasonableness of the settlement offer through the prism of hindsight" was highlighted: Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd v Tamar (No 7) [2013] FCA 863.
6. The plaintiffs relied upon the decision of Katzmann J in Veda Advantage Limited v Malouf Group Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 470 at [35], where her Honour accepted a submission that one of the parties was not in a position to know whether the terms of the offer were adequate to protect its interests at the relevant time.
7. As for the offer of compromise dated 5 December 2017, it was conceded that it did comply with the requirement of UCPR r 20.26 and, thus, the onus is on the plaintiffs to demonstrate why the court should depart from the consequence of their rejection of the offer. It was submitted that it was not a genuine offer of compromise and was made merely to trigger the cost consequences under the UCPR. The plaintiffs accepted that whether an offer contains a genuine element of compromise depends on the circumstances of the case viewed objectively. It was also accepted that a "walkaway" offer is a valid compromise for the purposes of the UCPR.
8. Reliance was also placed on the Court of Appeal decision of Leach v Nominal (QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd) (No 2) (2014) NSWCA 391 where it was held that where proceedings cannot be described as of an "all or nothing nature" then it can be reasonable to reject an offer of compromise. Indemnity costs were not made in that matter. Similarly, it was submitted that the present proceedings were on an "all or nothing" basis and thus the primary question was whether the plaintiffs had been able to establish that Mr Osborne was liable in some way for the cost of the fit-out. The only element of compromise was the costs. Thus, it was submitted that this offer did not serve the public policy of encouraging settlement and was only written to trigger the cost consequences under the UCPR; it did not represent a genuine offer of compromise.

Consideration

1. Section 98(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) provides that costs are in the discretion of the court. Section 98(1)(b) provides that the court has "full power to determine by whom, to whom and to what extent costs are to be paid". This discretion is subject to the qualification that it "must be exercised judicially in accordance with established principle and factors directly connected with the litigation": Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 at [65], per McHugh J. Among the fetters on the discretion to award costs are the rules of the court contained in Part 42 of the UCPR. The usual rule is that costs follow the event, unless it appears to the court that some other order should be made: UCPR, r 42.1. Costs ordered to be paid are assessed on the ordinary basis unless the court otherwise orders: UCPR, r 42.2. The making of a Calderbank offer is one circumstance in which the court might exercise its discretion under r 42.2 to make an order other than on the ordinary basis. UCPR r 42.5 relevantly provides that if the court determines that costs are to be paid on an indemnity basis then "all costs are to be allowed".
2. Offers of compromise are provided for in UCPR r 20.26 which relevantly provides: 20.26 Making of offer (1) In any proceedings, any party may, by notice in writing, make an offer to any other party to compromise any claim in the proceedings, either in whole or in part, on specified terms. (2) An offer under this rule - (a) must identify - (i) the claim or part of the claim to which it relates, and (ii) the proposed orders for disposal of the claim or part of the claim, including, if a monetary judgment is proposed, the amount of that monetary judgment, and (b) if the offer relates only to part of a claim in the proceedings, must include a statement - (i) in the case of an offer by the plaintiff, as to whether the balance of the proceedings is to be abandoned or pursued, or (ii) in the case of an offer by a defendant, as to whether the balance of the proceedings will be defended or conceded, and (c) must not include an amount for costs and must not be expressed to be inclusive of costs, and (d) must bear a statement to the effect that the offer is made in accordance with these rules, and (e) if the offeror has made or been ordered to make an interim payment to the offeree, must state whether or not the offer is in addition to that interim payment, and (f) must specify the period of time within which the offer is open for acceptance. (3) An offer under this rule may propose - (a) a judgment in favour of the defendant - (i) with no order as to costs, or (ii) despite subrule (2)(c), with a term of the offer that the defendant will pay to the plaintiff a specified sum in respect of the plaintiff's costs, or (b) that the costs as agreed or assessed up to the time the offer was made will be paid by the offeror, or (c) that the costs as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis or on the indemnity basis will be met out of a specified estate, notional estate or fund identified in the offer. (4) If the offeror makes an offer before the offeree has been given such particulars of the offeror's claim, and copies or originals of such documents available to the offeror, as are necessary to enable the offeree to fully consider the offer, the offeree may, within 14 days of receiving the offer, give notice to the offeror that - (a) the offeree is unable to assess the reasonableness of the offer because of the lack of particulars or documents, and (b) in the event that rule 42.14 applies to the proceedings, the offeree will seek an order of the court under rule 42.14(2).
3. The consequences of such an offer not being accepted and where the judgment is "no less favourable" are set out in UCPR r 42.14 as follows: 42.14 Where offer not accepted and judgment no less favourable to plaintiff (1) This rule applies if the offer is made by the plaintiff, but not accepted by the defendant, and the plaintiff obtains an order or judgment on the claim no less favourable to the plaintiff than the terms of the offer. (2) Unless the court orders otherwise, the plaintiff is entitled to an order against the defendant for the plaintiff's costs in respect of the claim - (a) assessed on the ordinary basis up to the time from which those costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis under paragraph (b), and (b) assessed on an indemnity basis - (i) if the offer was made before the first day of the trial, as from the beginning of the day following the day on which the offer was made, and (ii) if the offer was made on or after the first day of the trial, as from 11 am on the day following the day on which the offer was made.
4. In Chaina v Alvaro Homes Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 353 Basten JA (Giles JA and Young CJ in Eq agreeing) surveyed, in considerable detail, the relevant authorities relating to indemnity costs as follows: "[106] The modern approach to the question of awarding indemnity costs is often sourced to the judgment of Holland J in Degmam Pty Ltd (In liq) v Wright (No 2) [1983] 2 NSWLR 354. In cases where the winning party has acted extravagantly, thus running up unnecessary costs, it may be inappropriate to require the losing party to pay all of the winner's costs. However, the question of indemnity costs will usually arise in circumstances where it is the losing party which has behaved inappropriately. Degmam itself was a case in which the unsuccessful defendant made factual allegations which were "false and deliberately concocted by her in an attempt to deny the plaintiff its rights and to shift all blame and legal liability … from herself": at 358. His Honour continued: As well as that, she so conducted herself in the proceedings, by multiplying allegation upon allegation, and by prevaricating in the witness box, as grossly to prolong the litigation, thereby to cause the other parties to incur liability for solicitor and client costs far beyond what they could reasonably have expected to incur in litigation of genuine issues. [107] These principles were applied in Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 202 ; 81 ALR 397 at 400-401, by Woodward J. His Honour referred to the case where an action had been commenced or continued in circumstances where "the applicant, properly advised, should have known that he had no chance of success": at 401. His Honour explained: In such cases the action must be presumed to have been commenced or continued for some ulterior motive, or because of some wilful disregard of the known facts or the clearly established law. [108] In later cases it has been emphasised that the circumstances identified in Degmam and Fountain are not to be treated as exhaustive of the cases in which indemnity costs may be awarded: see, eg, J-Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Builders Labourers Federation Union of Workers (WA Branch) (No 2) [1993] FCA 42 ; 46 IR 301 at 303 (French J). It was sufficient, his Honour said, to enliven the discretion to award such costs that "for whatever reason, a party persists in what should on proper consideration be seen to be a hopeless case". An indemnity costs order will be warranted where proceedings were maintained by a party having "no reasonable prospect of success": see, eg, Baillieu Knight Frank (NSW) Pty Ltd v Ted Manny Real Estate Pty Ltd (1992) 30 NSWLR 359 (Powell J); Huntsman Chemical Co Australia Ltd v International Pools Australia Pty Ltd (1995) 36 NSWLR 242 at 273 (Mahoney JA). [109] The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 257(S) (Pullin and Buss JJA, and Newnes AJA) held that an indemnity costs order must be justified by "some special or unusual feature of the particular case": at [5]. Nevertheless, in declining to make such an order, the Court merely held that the respondent could not be accused of "having some ulterior motive, or wilfully disregarding the facts or the law": at [7]. [110] In Colgate-Palmolive, Sheppard J sought to elucidate the principles to be derived from the earlier cases: at pp 232-233. [111] Nevertheless, more recent case-law generally shows a tendency to grant indemnity costs orders more readily than was the case in the past. That may be seen to be an element of a broader policy directed to limiting the litigation of cases where there are no reasonable prospects of success: see, eg, Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), Part 3.2, Div 10. Such a policy is also reflected in the presumption in favour of an order of indemnity costs where an offer of compromise in accordance with court rules has been made by one party but not accepted by the other and where the offeror has bettered the offer in the litigation. Although the court may otherwise order, the fact that the offeree may be at substantial risk as to an adverse costs order, to be assessed on an indemnity basis, if the offer is bettered, places a significant financial incentive favouring careful consideration of such offers and careful assessment of the benefits of settlement. [112] As appears from the discussion in Commonwealth of Australia v Gretton [2008] NSWCA 117 (Beazley JA, Mason P agreeing) at [48]ff, the test of unreasonableness, applied with respect to the consequences of refusing a Calderbank offer are likely to operate also with respect to other aspects of a party's conduct of litigation: see also Gretton at [117] (Hodgson JA), referring to Rosniak v Government Insurance Office (1997) 41 NSWLR 608 at 616 (Mason P, Clarke AJA agreeing). [113] While the general rule remains that costs should be assessed on a party and party basis, it is important that the standard to be applied in awarding indemnity costs not be allowed to diminish to the extent that an unsuccessful party will be at risk of an order for costs assessed on an indemnity basis, absent some blameworthy conduct on its part. A test of unreasonableness should not be upheld on other than clear grounds. Nevertheless, the evaluative judgment thus engaged was satisfied by the findings of fact made by the trial judge and not directly challenged on appeal, except on the basis of other grounds referred to above. In those circumstances, the discretionary power to award costs on an indemnity basis was engaged and it was not demonstrated on House v R principles that the discretion had miscarried."
5. More recently, in Luo v Carbone [2019] NSWSC 830 at [44] Darke J re stated the relevant principles in exercising the Court's broad discretion to award costs as follows: "...the proper exercise of this discretion in circumstances where proceedings have settled will often be that there be no order as to costs, but it may be otherwise if it can be shown that "one of the parties has acted so unreasonably" in bringing the proceedings or defending the proceedings up until the time of settlement that "the other party should obtain the costs of the action" (Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 at 624-5; see also Nichols v NFS Agribusiness Pty Ltd (2018) 97 NSWLR 681; [2018] NSWCA 84 at [25]-[30]). As has been said by this Court on a number of occasions, the use of the word "so" as prefacing the word "unreasonably" indicates a level of unreasonableness which is established by the circumstances in which the costs were incurred (see Renton v Kelly [2018] NSWSC 1377 at [56]; Tuitupou v Davies [2019] NSWSC 160 at [48]; see also Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs Pty Ltd v Stack [2003] NSWCA 302 at [5]). This enquiry is one that must take into account the parties' conduct throughout the whole course of the proceedings (Fordyce v Fordham (2006) 67 NSWLR 497; [2006] NSWCA 274 at [67])."
6. There are two bases upon which Mr Osborne contends that the plaintiffs are liable to pay his costs on an indemnity basis: the unreasonable conduct of the proceedings and the failure to engage with offers to settle the matter. I shall deal with each of these in turn.
7. I am satisfied that, despite numerous requests, the plaintiffs failed to ever identify with precision how it was said that Mr Osborne was liable to them until 18 September 2018; a date almost 3 years after the proceedings were commenced.
8. I am satisfied that the three offers made by Mr Osborne ought be compared with the fact that only one offer was made by the plaintiffs. Despite its reliance on principles concerning this being an "all or nothing payment", the plaintiffs' offer of compromise was for an amount approximately half of that that was sought.
9. I am not satisfied that the large amount of documentation produced by the plaintiffs to defend this application assists their case. It mainly concerned the late receipt by them of relevant documentation and the opposition Mr Osborne made to various aspects of the discovery. It was not explained why the proceedings were commenced without any of the necessary documentation. Nor does the bulk of that material adequately explain why so many of the earlier letters sent to Moneytech from 2016 were not responded to. There has been no explanation as to why the repeated requests on behalf of Mr Osborne to clarify their case and address why he had been wrongly named or joined in this matter were ignored.
10. I have set out the correspondence in some detail above so that the approach by the plaintiffs to Mr Osborne's position can be fully understood. They were repeatedly warned over the years of the difficulties with their case by Mr Osborne's lawyers.
11. As for the plaintiffs' submission that the letters of compromise have to be viewed in the overall circumstances of the case, I am not satisfied that that submission assists the plaintiffs either. The relevant context is that it was over two and a half years after the initial requests of it to clarify their case that the plaintiffs finally did so on 18 September 2018. That case differed significantly from the way the statement of claim was initially. There was no clear case made against Mr Osborne until 18 September 2019.
12. The plaintiffs' primary arguments against the costs being ordered to be paid on an indemnity basis are that they got the relevant documentation late, that the offers of compromise were not genuine and that it was reasonable for them to reject them. I am not satisfied that any of these arguments have been made out. I have already concluded that the delay in responding to the correspondence from Mr Osborne and later his lawyers has not been adequately explained. That is, a solicitor of this court wrote to the plaintiffs' lawyers repeatedly explaining the difficulties in their case against Mr Osborne and these letters were not appropriately addressed.
13. As for whether the offers of compromise were "genuine", I am satisfied that they were. I reject the plaintiffs' submission that they were only made for the purposes of getting Mr Osborne favourable costs order at this stage of the proceedings. Having regard to the chronology of events, I am satisfied that Mr Osborne was anxious to settle this matter from the beginning as he could see his costs accruing steadily over the significant delay in bringing the matter on for hearing. In that context I am satisfied that the offers were all genuine.
14. As for the plaintiffs' argument that they were not in a position to know whether they should accept those offers until they had all the relevant documentation (nearly three years after commencing these proceedings), that argument completely ignores the fact that they were the plaintiffs in these proceedings. It was for the plaintiffs to understand their own case and in a more timely manner than occurred in this matter. I have had regard to the relevant principles about the benefit of hindsight, but I am satisfied that they are not applicable on the facts of this case.
15. As for the fact that the first letter was a Calderbank letter and not an offer made under UCPR r 20.24, I am nonetheless satisfied that the discretionary factors I have indicated above militate in favour of costs being awarded on an indemnity basis. My discretion in this regard is wide but is subject to the principles to which I have averted. I am satisfied that they all militate in favour of costs being awarded on an indemnity basis in this matter.

ORDERS

1. Accordingly, I make the following orders: 1. The first and second plaintiffs are to pay the sixth defendant's costs on an indemnity basis other than: 1. Those that appear to have been unreasonably incurred or appear to be of an unreasonable amount. 2. The costs order made by Campbell J on 20 November 2018. 1. The interest payable on the amount payable under the order for the payment of costs made today is to be calculated from 14 March 2019.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 15 November 2019