In the context of legal proceedings, the offer of compromise is an indispensable tool. It not only hastens the resolution of disputes but also mitigates the potential financial and emotional toll of litigation on all parties involved.

One critical aspect of these offers, however, often stokes debate: the time in which an offer should remain open.

This question has been addressed through several judicial decisions, one of them being Tonkin -v- Heilongjiang Feng Ao Agricultural & Animal Husbandry Group Co Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 378 (S).

This case concerned a Calderbank offer, a specific type of settlement offer, based on the English case Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333.

In the Tonkin case, the court underscored the pivotal role of the Calderbank offer in facilitating dispute resolution. The defendant's offer, a Calderbank offer, was open for seven days until a specified date. However, the court had to determine whether the plaintiffs' rejection of this offer was unreasonable. This evaluation involved a holistic view of the circumstances surrounding the offer.

The court's approach towards Calderbank offers has been shaped by various decisions, both within Western Australia and across the Commonwealth. In the case of Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115, the court held that the test for awarding indemnity costs against a party who rejected a Calderbank offer was whether the rejection was unreasonable under the circumstances. The burden of proof falls on the offeree to establish unreasonableness.

A similar sentiment was echoed in the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Miwa Pty Ltd v Siantan Properties Pte Ltd [No 2] [2011] NSWCA 334. The court posited that a reasonable offer could alter the court's perspective on the costs award, particularly when the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a better result in the judgment.

When assessing the reasonableness of rejection, several factors come into play. These were elucidated in Lo Presti and further elaborated by Beech J in McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 7] [2011] WASC 223 (S). These include:

the stage of proceedings at which the offer was received;
the time allowed to the offeree to consider the offer;
the extent of the compromise offered;
the offeree's prospects of success, assessed at the date of the offer;
the clarity with which the terms of the offer were made; and
whether the offer foreshadowed an application for indemnity costs in the event of the offeree's rejection.

In Tonkin, the court examined these factors to determine the reasonableness of the rejection.

The offer was made within six months of the commencement of proceedings, which was considered marginally in favour of the defendant. However, the court viewed the seven-day timeframe as potentially too short for careful consideration and perhaps expert advice, suggesting 28 days might have been more appropriate.

Key Take-Aways

The time in which offers need to remain open is a nuanced issue and depends on various considerations.
It requires a careful balance between hastening dispute resolution and allowing enough time for the parties to make informed decisions.