Arab Bank of Australia Ltd v Jeitani (No. 2)

The case of Arab Bank of Australia Ltd v Jeitani (No. 2) involved multiple claims and counter-claims between the Arab Bank of Australia Ltd and Mr Jeitani. The dispute arose from a series of financial transactions and contractual agreements, with each party bringing separate claims against the other. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Arab Bank brought claims against Jeitani for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, while Jeitani counter-claimed for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent mis-statement.

The primary legal issue before the court was the apportionment of costs between the parties, given that each party was successful on one of their claims, while a third claim was settled out of court. The court had to determine whether the costs should be apportioned between the parties and if there was a basis to set off competing costs orders against each other. The court needed to consider the principles of costs in litigation and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted a deviation from the usual rules of costs.

The court held that the usual rule is that each party bears their own costs, but it also recognised the principle that costs should follow the event. Given that each party was successful on one of their claims, the court determined that the costs should be apportioned between the parties. However, the court also considered the principle of set-off, which allows for the costs of one party to be deducted from the costs of the other. After examining the respective costs orders, the court found that the set-off of competing costs orders was appropriate in this case. Consequently, the court ordered that the costs of the third claim be apportioned between the parties, with a set-off of the respective costs orders.