Check a Calderbank letter separately from a Queensland rule 353 offer
MaintainedLast reviewed
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From the letter, list the offer, the time it was open, whether it is inclusive of costs, and whether it foreshadows indemnity costs. The tool does not decide whether rejection was unreasonable.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides whether rejection was unreasonable.
- Do not treat the six factors as rules. They are not in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
- A formal offer must be in writing and state that it is made under the part.
- Apply rules 360 and 361 to that formal offer, not to the letter of their own force.
Rules that apply
The document starts from the task name. Change it if this piece of work is different.
The work product
Forum. A Queensland proceeding in which a Calderbank letter is used on costs, contrasted with a formal offer under rules 353 and 355
Produce. A factor-by-factor note, kept separate from the formal-offer rules.
Have ready. The letter; Whether it states that it is made under the rules; How long it was open.
Example of the limit. Illustrative example: The letter is inclusive of costs and open for seven days. The note does not treat it as a rule 353 offer. The lawyer decides whether the time was reasonable.
Stop and hand it back when
- The document states that it is made under the part. Check it as a formal offer instead.
- The tool is asked to decide that indemnity costs will be ordered.
Sources for this task were checked on 2026-10-23.
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | From the letter, list the offer, the time it was open, whether it is inclusive of costs, and whether it foreshadows indemnity costs. The tool does not decide whether rejection was unreasonable. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- The opened article sets out six matters that guide whether rejection of a Calderbank letter was unreasonable: stage, time allowed, extent of the compromise, prospects at the date of the offer, clarity, and whether indemnity costs were foreshadowed.
- Those matters are not set out in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
- Rule 353 requires a formal offer to be in writing and to state that it is made under the part. Rule 355 requires an open period ending not less than 14 days after the day of service.
- The court cannot extend the time for accepting a formal offer. A Calderbank letter is not checked against that rule.
Forms and precedents for this task
| Form or precedent | Kind | AI use | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reply to a Calderbank offer in a personal injury claim | Letter | AI use Yellow | A reply to a Calderbank offer in a Victorian, Queensland or New South Wales personal injury claim. |
Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one. All precedents.
Sources
- Law Society Journal, settlement offers and indemnity costs (4 October 2022) · 2026-10-23
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 353 · 2026-10-23
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 355 · 2026-10-23
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 360 · 2026-10-23
Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025 and District Court Practice Direction 12 of 2025 require a named practitioner to verify references in submissions. They are not a ban on generative AI in evidence.
The six factors are taken from the Law Society Journal article of 4 October 2022. The Hazeldene judgment itself was not opened. Do not attribute the factors to a Queensland rule.