Baskerville v Skene (No. 2)

In the case of Baskerville v Skene (No. 2), the defendant/applicant, Skene, sought to have the costs of the proceeding be each party's own costs, deviating from the general rule that costs follow the event. The plaintiff/respondent, Baskerville, opposed this application, arguing that the usual principle should apply, and that the costs should follow the outcome of the case. The court was tasked with determining whether the application for costs to be borne by each party should be granted, or whether the general principle that costs should follow the event should be upheld.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate allocation of costs in the context of an application for costs. The court needed to consider the principles governing costs in proceedings and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify deviating from the general rule. The court was also required to examine whether the applicant's conduct warranted a departure from the standard cost allocation rule.

The court ruled that the general principle that costs follow the event should apply, and therefore dismissed the application for each party to bear their own costs. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify a deviation from the standard rule. The judge emphasised that the principle of costs following the event is a fundamental aspect of the Australian legal system, intended to encourage parties to pursue or defend claims appropriately. The court ordered that the defendant/applicants pay the plaintiff/respondent's costs of the application.