43 The only other evidentiary material before me as to the Marcelli affidavit of 6 October is the references at par 4 and par 5 of Mr Picton-Warlow's affidavit of 16 July 2001, which in turn refer to the original bill of costs filed 9 November 2000. None of this material explains the content of the affidavit, the extent to which (if at all) it recapitulated or related to matters pertaining to the related action, what work had to be done to respond to it, nor why. I consider the material adduced in support of the application for the special costs order to be barely adequate. In the end, however, and in the absence of any evidentiary challenge to it, I am prepared to accept the plaintiff has shown on the face of it that a substantial affidavit in excess of 900 pages was served (but not filed) shortly before the hearing which necessitated substantial additional work. In an appropriate case the fact that an unusual amount of work is required to be carried out may itself be a good or sufficient reason for making a special order: (see Briggs & Briggs v Glentham Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 930223; 21 April 1993 per Malcolm CJ at 5). The need to respond urgently to the very lengthy Marcelli affidavit and the costs prima facie associated with that, demonstrating an apparent inadequacy in the scale fee to the extent of some $1,297.70, in the context of a total solicitor's costs bill of $25,978.70, in my view constitutes a good and sufficient reason for the purposes of O 66 r 12(1).