“My offer is: you lose.”
___
Parties in a legal dispute often exchange settlement offers.
Speaking loosely, many of those offers might be characterised as: “I am claiming $X + Y, but I’ll go away if you pay me $X.”
Sometimes an offer is made that could be described as: “Let’s agree that you lose, but I won’t chase you for my legal costs. We will each pay our own.”
Generally, when a party “loses” in Court proceedings, they will pay the “winner’s” legal fees.
That way, an offer of “you lose, but I won’t seek costs” can be seen as a compromise.
The Court considered this recently.
A D made an offer that the D would get judgment - or “win” - but wouldn’t seek costs: [7]
The offer was not accepted. The matter went to final hearing, and the D got judgment - the D “won”: [1]
The D said that the P’s failure to accept the offer was unreasonably, meaning the P should have to pay the D’s legal costs at a high level, on the “indemnity” basis: [3]
To succeed the D had to argue the offer was a genuine compromise. The D failed to convince the Court of that. This is because there is no evidence of the D disclosing the amount of costs at the time of the offer, and because while the P’s claim was weak, there was still some doubt about how a Court might have ultimately received the evidence: [11], [12]
The original “ordinary” cost order remained.
#makdap
