• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BUCHANAN J: 1 By application and statement of claim filed on 2 October 2009 the applicant (Mr Butorac) alleged breach of ss 52 and 53B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and breach of contract by the first respondent. The second respondent was alleged also to be liable. 2 On 19 November 2009 the respondents sought, by motion, summary dismissal of a number of Mr Butorac's claims and asked that a large number of paragraphs in the statement of claim be struck out. On 15 December 2009 I delivered judgment on the motion (Butorac v WIN Corporation [2009] FCA 1503) indicating that I would uphold some parts of the motion and dismiss others. On 5 February 2010 I made orders to that effect. I did not, on either occasion, deal with the question of costs. The respondents have now applied for their costs of the motion. 3 The parties have agreed that costs should be dealt with on the basis of written submissions filed by each of them. 4 The respondents argued that they achieved a substantial measure of success and should have all their costs or, alternatively, 75% of their costs of the motion. Mr Butorac argued that costs of the motion should be costs in the cause or, alternatively, each party should pay their own costs. 5 It will be clear from the earlier judgment that both sides had wins and losses. My impression is that probably more time would have been required out of court to address the matters where the respondent succeeded than those where it did not. That was also the case so far as the hearing was concerned. On the other hand, I have no evidence about it and I am not prepared simply to assume that there was a very great disparity between matters where the respondents succeeded and those where it failed. In the circumstances an order that the respondents have all, or even 75%, of their costs of the motion while Mr Butorac met his own costs in addition, would not be justified. Something approaching an equal distribution of the burden of costs would be more appropriate if costs must be apportioned now. 6 One possibility, therefore, is that the parties pay their own costs of the motion, as Mr Butorac's alternative submission suggests. On the other hand, there is much to be said for the idea that the motion should be seen as an introductory skirmish in the larger contest and, as there was no clear victor in that skirmish, the costs of the motion should become part of the overall costs in the case as a whole. That is the position I favour in the present circumstances. 7 Accordingly, I adopt the primary submission made by Mr Butorac. Costs of the motion shall be costs in the cause. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Buchanan.