"Nor, in my view, does the complainant's contention derive any support from the use of the words `costs reasonably incurred'. Those words are apt to describe costs on a party and party basis, as much as they are to describe costs on a solicitor/client basis, because such costs have always been regarded as the costs which are reasonably incurred in the attainment of justice between the parties. ... There can be no doubt that, in litigation in superior courts, the usual measure of costs awarded is costs on a party/party basis. There is, likewise, no doubt that a Court does have the power to award costs on a higher measure if the circumstances require it. This practice in the superior courts is, in my experience, universal although it is well recognized that there is occurring an ever increasing gap between party/party costs and those actually incurred. In the case of Bass Shire Council v King and others (Supreme Court of Victoria, unreported, 15th August 1994), Nathan, J expressed the practice in what are, in my view, appropriate terms: `It is undoubtedly a principle of law that costs follow the event on a party and party basis, but that courts are free to depart from that principle if confronted with circumstances where the conduct of one or other of the parties ... would warrant the ordering of costs on an indemnity basis. There must be special circumstances which left the case out of the ordinary.' ... As I have already said, the mere fact that s.47(2) uses the words `costs reasonably incurred' is quite insufficient to lead me to the conclusion that the Parliament was intending, in the context of the equal opportunity legislation, to introduce a costs practice diametrically opposed to that which has become entrenched in the superior courts of this country."