Woodside Energy Ltd v Zaghloul

THE COURT: 1 By judgment of the Court in Woodside Energy Ltd v Zaghloul [2015] FCAFC 135, the appeal was dismissed and Woodside was ordered to pay Dr Zaghloul's costs. 2 When those orders there made, Woodside sought a special costs order for costs thrown away in this appeal as a result of having to address, consider and respond to various notices and arguments raised by Dr Zaghloul both when he acted in person prior to his pro bono representation being provided by Dr Cameron of counsel and after Dr Cameron began to act. 3 The order Woodside seeks is: The respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the notices of objection to competency filed on 3 and 4 December 2014, the notice of contention filed on 10 December 2014, the amended notice of attention filed on 6 February 2015, the arguments abandoned by the respondent to the hearing of the appeal and the application for special costs orders. 4 The arguments raised by Dr Zaghloul were manifestly without merit and almost entirely abandoned by counsel before or at the hearing of the appeal. 5 It should have been obvious to Woodside that there was nothing in the points raised. Woodside's suggestion that there was over $21,700 worth of time incurred between solicitors and counsel in considering those matters is somewhat difficult to understand. 6 Woodside is entitled to some compensation for considering the arguments continually thrown up by Dr Zaghloul and while the amount claimed appears on its face to be disproportionate on a party and party basis, it is equally inappropriate for Dr Zaghloul to expect that a represented party, which is obviously paying for that legal representation to be required to meet its own costs for considering every unwarranted and, in some cases, unfathomable argument presented. 7 The schedule of costs annexed by affidavit tendered by Woodside was clearly based on a solicitor/client basis. The total in it is far too much to award against an individual who was otherwise successful on the main point on the appeal. 8 We would make an order substantially as sought by Woodside but by adding the qualification, "fixed in total in the sum of $4000". 9 The second order made on 16 September 2015 remains appropriate, namely, that Woodside pay Dr Zaghloul's costs of the appeal, but this should be qualified as follows to reflect our assessment of the costs that Woodside is entitled to recover as follows: