Acquista Investments Pty Ltd v The Urban Renewal Authority (No 2)

This matter concerned an appeal by Acquista Investments Pty Ltd (the appellants) against a decision of the Urban Renewal Authority (the respondents) regarding costs. The appeal was heard by Vanstone and Lovell JJ, with Debelle AJ dissenting on the costs orders.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether to set aside the trial judge's order that each party bear their own costs of the trial, and whether to award costs of the trial and appeal to the respondents. A secondary issue, addressed by Debelle AJ, concerned the application of Rule 269 of the court's rules, which pertains to the costs implications of separate representation for parties with common interests.

Vanstone and Lovell JJ found that there were compelling reasons for separate representation of the respondents, despite commonality of interests, and therefore the appellants should bear the costs of both the trial and the appeal. They set aside the trial judge's order for no order as to costs and ordered the appellants to pay the costs of all respondents for both the trial and the appeal. Debelle AJ, however, respectfully disagreed, holding that the trial judge's discretion to order each party to bear their own costs had not been shown to have miscarried, and that the appellants' failure on appeal did not justify interfering with that order. He also considered Rule 269, noting that its exercise did not depend on a party objecting before the hearing to separate representation.