Category Legal Affairs

Think twice before rejecting a Calderbank offer

26 August 2019 Natasha Naidoo, Norton Rose Fulbright

In May 2019 the Bloemfontein High Court confirmed that a secret offer which is made by any party to a damages claim (including the plaintiff) to save costs will affect the costs order. Such an offer is known as a Calderbank offer with origins in English law and similar principles apply in the South African legal context.

A patient had instituted action against her neurosurgeon as well as the hospital to which she was admitted after she experienced complications following spinal surgery. The plaintiff’s allegations concerning her treatment and management during her hospitalisation are not, for the purposes of this article, relevant. What is significant is that the plaintiff made three Calderbank offers to the hospital to settle the claim on better terms for the second defendant than the eventual outcome for it.

In deciding whether a punitive costs order should be imposed on a party who rejects a Calderbank offer, the court will consider at what juncture of the proceedings the offer was made; the time period provided for acceptance of the offer; the reasonableness of the offer; the prospects of success of the party to whom the offer is made; whether the offer was made in clear and concise terms; and whether the offer suggested an indemnity for costs if the party to whom the offer was made rejected it.

The court referred to the judgment of AD & Another where it was held that a court must consider whether the defendant caused the plaintiff to incur unnecessary costs by refusing to accept the settlement offer or by failing to make a counter-offer. In deciding on this issue, a court will consider:

  • Whether the defendant made a reasonable effort to settle the matter;
  • Was the offer made was less than the amount claimed, following a proper quantification of the claim;
  • Was the defendant allowed adequate time to consider the offer;
  • What the difference is between the amount offered and the amount awarded by the court;
  • Is a costs order on an attorney client scale appropriate considering the nature of the proceedings and the financial positions of the parties.

The court applied the principles in AD & Another and held that the second defendant should have accepted the settlement offer and therefore it was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the punitive attorney and client scale, and ordered to pay the costs of the first defendant.

In light of the above, it is advisable to make an offer to compromise the claims one party has against the other party either as a secret informal offer or in terms of the rules of court. The offer should be set out in clear and concise terms with a proper explanation as to how the amount being offered has been calculated. The offer should be easily capable of acceptance and the party to whom the offer is being made should be afforded the opportunity to query any aspect of the offer.

A party to whom the offer is properly made runs the risk of an adverse costs order being awarded against it for failure to accept an offer which is reasonable in the circumstances.

The judgment is Van Reenen v Lewis 2019 JDR 1150(B).

First published by: Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot

Quick Polls


No developing economy has ever built a single-payer complementary NHI equivalent covering the entire population. NHI promises comprehensive care but it is also 100% free at the point-of-service. Is this practical?


It is doable but collaboration is key
South Africa is not in a position to build NHI
The only conclusion possible is that the private healthcare sector is not going to disappear or change
There is little chance that the NHI will be able to receive significant government funding
A E fanews magazine
FAnews August 2019 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

Create designer policies through AI
Are advisers in a precarious position?
A claim, COIDA and a dog bite
Non-disclosure never an innocent fraud
Prescribed assets: The threat to pensions
Cannabis and the issue of trust
Getting the most from disability claims
Subscribe now