Lindrum v T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd

1. By 13 March 2026, the parties file any agreed proposed minute of orders fixing a lump sum in relation to the costs referred to in paragraph 3(a) and/or paragraph 3(b) above.
2. In the absence of agreement:

(a) By 4.00 pm on 20 March 2026, each of Time & Place Development and Kapitol file and serve a Costs Summary in accordance with paragraphs 4.10 to 4.12 of the Court's Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS) (Practice Note).

(b) By 4.00 pm on 2 April 2026, the applicant file and serve a Costs Response in accordance with paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14 of the Practice Note.

(c) The amount of the lump sum of Time & Place Development's costs and Kapitol's costs be determined by a Registrar of the Court.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

1. On 19 December 2025, I dismissed two interlocutory applications brought by the applicant: Lindrum v T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1644. The first application sought injunctive relief against the respondent and two non-parties, Time & Place Development Pty Ltd and Kapitol Group Pty Ltd (the Non-Parties). The second application sought joinder of the Non-Parties. These reasons should be read together with the reasons for judgment dated 19 December 2025. I will adopt the abbreviations used in those reasons.
2. In the orders made on 19 December 2025, I included orders as to costs, but those orders were made subject to any party filing a submission if she or it sought a different costs order. Subsequently, both Dr Lindrum and the Non-Parties filed submissions seeking different costs orders. Dr Lindrum filed a submission dated 22 January 2026, and the Non-Parties filed a submission dated 23 January 2026. In addition, the Non-Parties filed an affidavit of Cameron Lang dated 23 January 2026.
3. At a case management hearing on 24 February 2026, I sought clarification from the Non-Parties as to whether the costs that they are claiming relate to both the application for injunctive relief and the joinder application. They clarified that the costs that they seek to recover relate to both applications, not just the joinder application.
4. In summary, the positions of the parties and the Non-Parties are as follows:

(a) Dr Lindrum contends that there should be no order as to costs in respect of the interlocutory applications.

(b) T&P contends that it should have its costs of the application for injunctive relief against it.

(c) The Non-Parties seek their costs of the interlocutory applications, to be determined on a lump sum basis.

1. At the hearing on 24 February 2026, I also sought clarification from the Non-Parties as to the lump sum amounts they sought to recover. It was clarified that the amounts they seek are:

(a) $1,469.50 (ex GST) for Time & Place Development; and

(b) $4,263.00 (ex GST) for Kapitol.

1. Those figures are "ex GST" figures. The Non-Parties do not seek to recover the GST amount on those figures.
2. I will start by considering the costs of Dr Lindrum's application for interlocutory injunctive relief insofar as it relates to T&P. The ordinary position is that costs "follow the event"; in other words, the unsuccessful party is usually ordered to pay the successful party's costs. In this case, Dr Lindrum was unsuccessful in her application for interlocutory injunctive relief against T&P. I do not see any proper basis to depart from the usual position. The matters raised in Dr Lindrum's submission largely repeat her allegations against T&P. These allegations form part of the wider dispute between the parties. They have not yet been resolved. They do not provide a proper basis to depart from the usual position as to costs in relation to the application for interlocutory injunctive relief.
3. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate to order that Dr Lindrum pay T&P's costs of the application for interlocutory injunctive relief. I note that, under the normal operation of the Federal Court Rules 2011, these costs are not payable at this stage of the proceeding.
4. I turn now to consider the Non-Parties' application for costs.
5. In circumstances where the Non-Parties were served with Dr Lindrum's interlocutory application dated 27 October 2025 (see paragraph 2 of the submissions filed by T&P and the Non-Parties dated 26 November 2025), and the interlocutory application sought relief against them, I consider that it was appropriate for them to appear at the hearing to oppose the relief sought against them. This applies to both the application for injunctive relief and the application for joinder.
6. Having been served with and having successfully opposed the interlocutory applications, I consider that the Non-Parties are entitled to their costs in accordance with the usual position that costs follow the event.
7. The Non-Parties seek a determination of their costs on a lump sum basis. They have filed affidavit material as to their actual legal fees and disbursements. They contend for a lump sum amount representing 70% of their legal fees and 100% of their disbursements. The amounts they seek are set out above.
8. I accept that a lump sum determination process is appropriate. However, rather than determining the amounts myself, I prefer to refer this to a Registrar to determine so that the process set out in the Court's Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS) (involving a Costs Summary and a Costs Response) can be followed. I will therefore make orders to facilitate the determination of the lump sum amounts by a Registrar. In this regard, I make the following observation for the sake of clarity and to avoid potential disputation: I do not consider it open to the Non-Parties to seek more than the amounts they sought before me (i.e. the amounts set out in [5] above).

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Moshinsky.