First Plaintiff Second Plaintiff v First Defendant Second Defendant Third Defendant Fourth Defendant

For the reasons which follow it is not necessary to discuss the application of these provisions specifically. Nevertheless, as indicated in detail in these reasons, there has clearly been contravention of the overarching obligations on the part of Sunland. Accordingly the Court's discretion as to costs has been exercised in accordance with these provisions and having regard to the nature and extent of these contraventions, on the bases and the manner set out below.

20 The present applications include applications for the award of costs with respect to these proceedings when they were conducted in the Federal Court prior to their transfer by Logan J, on 3 November 2011, to this Court. His Honour did not make any costs order on the transfer of these proceedings, though, in a number of interlocutory proceedings, costs were awarded in favour of a particular party or parties but, in many instances, costs were simply reserved. Under s 11(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987, the court to which a proceeding is transferred, in effect, steps into the shoes of the court from which the proceeding has been transferred, with power conferred on the transferee court to make further orders in the proceedings as though the steps already taken in the transfer court had been taken in the transferee court.[34] This position is, however, subject to what is, effectively, an exception to this general power with respect to costs. Thus, s 12 of this Act confers power on this Court to make an order as to costs that relates to the conduct of this proceeding before its transfer or removal from the Federal Court to the extent that those costs have not already been dealt with by that Court. The jurisdiction to grant a special costs order in this Court and the Federal Court of Australia is relevantly the same, with the same principles applicable.