Angelevska v State of Victoria (No 4)

In the case of Angelevska v State of Victoria (No 4), the primary dispute involved interlocutory costs, specifically the relationship between a gross costs order and the immediate taxation of those costs. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Angelevska, sought a gross costs order for interlocutory costs, whereas the defendant, the State of Victoria, argued against such an order.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a gross costs order for interlocutory costs is contingent upon an order for immediate taxation of those costs also being appropriate. The court had to determine if these two orders are distinct discretions that concern different subject matter, or if they are inherently linked. Additionally, the court considered whether an order for immediate taxation would have been appropriate in this instance.

In addressing these issues, the court found that a gross costs order for interlocutory costs is not dependent on an order for immediate taxation of those costs also being appropriate. The court emphasised that these are distinct discretions, each concerned with different subject matter. The overarching principle guiding these decisions is the furtherance of the purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). The court further noted that, in this particular case, an order for immediate taxation would also have been appropriate. The relevant sections of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) and the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) were considered, along with relevant rules under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.

The final orders of the court did not specify the quantum of costs but confirmed the court's stance on the distinct nature of gross costs orders and immediate taxation orders. The court's decision clarified the relationship between these two types of cost orders, providing guidance for future litigation involving interlocutory costs.