ACN 115 918 959 Pty Ltd v Hoeys Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the matter of ACN 115 918 959 Pty Ltd v Hoeys Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2), the dispute arose from professional negligence claims brought by the plaintiff, ACN 115 918 959 Pty Ltd, against the defendants, Hoeys Lawyers Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' negligence in handling its affairs led to financial loss. The defendants partially succeeded in defending the claims, but the plaintiff was successful in establishing some liability on the part of the defendants. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate apportionment of costs between the parties, taking into account the varying degrees of success and the conduct of the defendants.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the conduct of the defendants warranted a costs order that deviated from the usual practice of costs following the event. Specifically, the court needed to decide if a Bullock or Sanderson order was appropriate. A Bullock order refers to a situation where costs are awarded against a party to proceedings who has been successful in whole or in part but whose conduct during the proceedings has been such that it would be just to award costs against them. A Sanderson order, on the other hand, involves awarding costs against a party who has been unsuccessful in the proceedings but whose conduct has been such that it would be just to award costs against them. The court needed to examine the defendants' conduct to determine if either type of order was warranted.

The court concluded that the defendants' conduct during the proceedings warranted a departure from the usual costs apportionment. It found that the defendants' conduct was vexatious and oppressive, which justified the imposition of a Bullock order. The court noted that the defendants had unreasonably prolonged the proceedings and engaged in conduct that was not in the interests of a just resolution of the dispute. As a result, the court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding, notwithstanding their partial success at trial. This decision recognised the negative impact of the defendants' conduct on the administration of justice and aimed to deter similar behaviour in future litigation.

The final orders of the court reflected this reasoning, with the defendants being ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding. This decision underscored the importance of conduct in litigation and the court's power to impose costs orders that reflect the realities of the proceedings and the behaviour of the parties involved.