Awad v ISPT Pty Limited & Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Limited & Glad Cleaning Services Pty Limited (No 3)

The case of Awad v ISPT Pty Limited & Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Limited & Glad Cleaning Services Pty Limited (No 3) involves the plaintiff, Awad, who has sought relief under section 341 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 to have the maximum costs limitation lifted. The defendants in this matter are ISPT Pty Limited, Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Limited, and Glad Cleaning Services Pty Limited. The primary dispute concerns the plaintiff's application for an adjustment of costs, arguing that the defendants' conduct was not reasonably necessary for the advancement of their respective cases and was likely to unnecessarily delay or complicate the determination of the claim.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendants' conduct during the lengthy hearing, particularly their submissions, warranted lifting the maximum costs limitation under section 341 of the Legal Profession Act 2004. Additionally, the second defendant sought an order for the costs to be paid pro rata to their liability for the plaintiff’s damages, arguing that equality is equity. The third defendant also relied on this principle in their submissions. Furthermore, the second defendant made an application regarding its offer of compromise to the other defendants, which was ultimately refused by the court.

The court held that the plaintiff’s application under section 341 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 was refused. The court found that the defendants' conduct, although lengthy and detailed, was reasonably necessary for the advancement of their respective cases and did not intend or reasonably likely to unnecessarily delay or complicate the determination of the claim. The court also ruled that the failure of the defendants to make any offer of compromise did not enliven section 341. Regarding the application for costs to be paid pro rata, the court ordered that the costs be borne by the defendants in proportion to their respective liabilities for the plaintiff's damages. However, the court refused the application regarding the offer of compromise, stating that "close enough is not good enough."