1 On 8 December 2004, I ordered that the plaintiffs provide security for the costs of each of the defendants. I indicated that I would direct that security be provided at this stage for these costs up to and including the mediation which is scheduled to take place in March 2005. The amount of this security in each case was left for further consideration. I now undertake this task.

2 I have received affidavits filed on behalf of the contending parties and their written submissions. In making the assessment in each case I apply the following principles:

(1) My task is not to undertake anything in the nature of a taxation of the suggested bills; it is to fix an amount which fairly achieves the objective of Rule 62.02 and s. 1335 of the Corporations Act.

(2) It is accepted that the security is not intended to indemnify the defendant in question with respect of all of its party and party costs. I will therefore give an overall discount of 20% as suggested by the Spotless parties.

(3) I do not include the costs of interlocutory applications where costs have been ordered to be paid in those applications.

(4) I do not include the costs of the security application itself. These will be dealt with as part of the order in the security application.

(5) I will not allow to a defendant the costs of proceeding between it and another defendant or between it and a third party.

(6) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, I will allow costs of discovery from other defendants because this will, in this case, assist the defendant in the conduct of its own case.

(7) I will allow transcript of directions hearings having regard to the provisions of Practice Note 3 of 2004.

(8) I will allow for preparation of a data base set of documents as it is desirable that this be done at the earliest stage for the benefit of the trial for all parties[1].

(9) I am not concerned with costs which may yet be incurred. Accordingly, I will not allow costs of proposed interrogatories or those brought about by the expected production of documents pursuant to the Spotless subpoenas.

3 In the light of those general principles, I have determined that the following security be provided, some details of which are to be found in the tables which follow. First, the Spotless Parties' Costs - $201,500; North Suburban's Costs - $85,000; Collie's Planning Costs $123,500; Keen's Planning Costs - $74,200; Moreland City Council's Costs - $185,500; Kilpatrick & Associate's Costs - $80,000; McMullin Nominees' Costs - $145,000.

[1] See Practice Note No 1 2002.
[2] The figure for the costs arising out of the documents produced pursuant to the plaintiff's subpoena is not supported by the affidavit of Ms Lincoln. I will allow 50% only.
[3] The Wyld assessment total is not seriously challenged.
[4] Pltffs' figure accepted by Collie.
[5] Disallow items 11, 12, 13.
[6] Accept Weingart's figures.
[7] Not sufficiently detailed to accept.
[8] Assessment based on the slender details provided and a comparison with the costs of like parties.
[9] Reduce as per items (f), (g), (h) plus directions hearing allowed at $5,350.
[10] Allow direction hearings (3), mediation and advice on evidence only.

Plaintiff v Defendants

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (15 paragraphs)

Parties