Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 AUGUST 2011

Indemnity costs ordered against the defendant despite contributory negligence being assessed at 65%

Schimke case and mandatory offer under s 51(1) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 discussed.

AustraliaInsurance
Andrew Parker
Andrew Parker

Judgment date: 22 July 2011

Schimke v Clements and Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited (No. 2) [2011] QSC 208

Supreme Court of Queensland1

In Brief

The fact that a party has made a mandatory offer under s 51(1) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (the Act) will not in itself be enough to avoid an indemnity costs order, if that party makes a later formal offer under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2 (UCPR) which the court considers to be a genuine offer by way of a substantial compromise.

Background

The above case arises out of a claim for indemnity costs made by the plaintiff, as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2 February 2008. The facts of the substantive action are outlined in detail in Schimke v Clements [2011] QSC 182. They can be briefly summarised as follows.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from