Alexanderson Earthmover Pty Ltd v Civil Mining and Construction (No 2)

The appeal before the court involved Alexanderson Earthmover Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Civil Mining and Construction, the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover costs incurred from two interlocutory applications in relation to an underlying dispute. The court was asked to determine the costs of these applications under the general rule that costs follow the event. The mixed results in the two applications led to a complex issue of cost allocation between the parties.

The primary legal issue before the court was the allocation of costs in the two interlocutory applications. The first application, filed by the defendant on 12 March 2019, resulted in a full costs order against the plaintiff. The second application, filed by both parties on 16 November 2018, had mixed results, with some paragraphs decided in favour of the plaintiff and others in favour of the defendant. The court needed to determine the appropriate allocation of costs for these mixed results. The court also needed to consider the defendant's lack of interest in some of the plaintiff's applications.

The court held that in the defendant’s application filed on 12 March 2019, the plaintiff was to pay the defendant’s costs of the application, as the plaintiff was unsuccessful. Regarding the application filed on 16 November 2018, the court found that the parties were to bear their own costs, except for the costs of paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, which the plaintiff was to pay. The court reasoned that the mixed results warranted a division of costs, and the defendant's lack of interest in some parts of the plaintiff's application further supported the cost allocation. The court's decision was based on the general principle that costs follow the event and the specific circumstances of the mixed results and the parties' interests.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the plaintiff was to pay the defendant's costs of the application filed on 12 March 2019. For the application filed on 16 November 2018, the plaintiff was to pay the defendant's costs of paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, while the parties were to bear their own costs for the other paragraphs.