Austin BMI Pty Ltd v Deputy Premier (No 2)

Austin BMI Pty Ltd v Deputy Premier (No 2) involved three separate applications, with Austin BMI Pty Ltd and another party jointly conducting the litigation in two of the proceedings. The respondents in these two proceedings were successful, and they sought costs from the applicants. The applicants argued that they should not be liable for the costs of both respondents, as the litigation was conducted jointly and there was duplication in the process. The third respondent supported the applicants in one of the proceedings, but one of the respondents sought costs against the third respondent. The third respondent claimed its involvement in the proceedings was limited.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants should pay the costs of both respondents, considering the joint conduct of the litigation and the principle of avoiding duplication. The court also needed to decide whether it was reasonable for the respondents to remain at arm's length during the litigation and whether the third respondent should pay any costs to the successful respondent.

The court held that the applicants should pay the costs of the first and second respondents in two of the proceedings, while the third respondent should pay the second respondent's costs in those proceedings, but limited to 10% of those costs. The court found that there were less reasons for the third respondent to remain at arm's length from the Minister, as both were public entities. In the third proceeding, the court ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the second respondent.

The final orders included that in proceeding No. 2105 of 2022, the applicants should pay the costs of the first and second respondents, and the third respondent should pay the costs of the second respondent, limited to 10% of those costs. In proceeding No. 2198 of 2022, the applicants should pay the costs of the first and second respondents, and the third respondent should pay the costs of the second respondent, limited to 10% of those costs. In proceeding No. 2192 of 2022, the applicants should pay the costs of the second respondent.