Barescape Pty Limited as trustee for the V’s Family Trust v Bacchus Holdings Pty Limited as trustee for The Bacchus Holdings Trust (No 12)  NSWSC 1591 is a substantial judgment in relation to costs in a complex matter. At  Justice Black summarised the law where a claimant is successful but unsuccessful in a counterclaim, or vice-versa. Are the costs to be awarded separately or are the costs of the whole proceeding to be aggregated so that one order is made in respect of the lot?
‘Where a claim and cross-claim raise essentially different issues and a plaintiff succeeds in the claim and the defendant on the cross-claim, there should generally be separate judgments on the claim and the cross-claim with the plaintiff having the costs of the claim and the defendant having the costs of the cross-claim, although a special order may be made if the issues are interlocked: Chell Engineering Ltd v Unit Tool & Engineering Co Ltd  1 All ER 378; Godden v Alford  WAR 235 at 236-237. It appears that, in Visible Results Properties Inc v Sushi Train (Australia) Pty Limited  FCA 514, Allsop J adopted the former approach in ordering that an unsuccessful applicant/cross-respondent (“Visible Results”) pay the costs of the respondent/cross-claimant (“Sushi Train”) of the application and that Sushi Train pay Visible Results’ costs of the Cross-Claim. However, that approach was there advanced by one party and not opposed by the other. On the other hand, the result of an appeal and cross-appeal were aggregated where there was an overlap between them in Polwood Pty Ltd v Foxworth (No 2)  FCAFC 168 at -, where the Full Court of the Federal Court pointed to the undesirability of potentially separate taxation of the costs of an appeal and cross-appeal giving rise to disputes as to whether a particular attendance was a cost in one or the other and ordered payment of a percentage of costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.’
- Entitlement to costs of claimants enjoying mixed success in their own claim
- Jury verdict overturned by VSCA because of insinuation in cross-examination without adequate factual foundation
- NZCA stomps on attempt to limit costs against disciplinary bodies
- How much success warrants costs? Nominal damages enough?
- Executrixes’ denial of deceased’s alcoholism without any proper factual foundation results in indemnity costs order