Baxbex Pty Ltd v Bickle (No 2)

Baxbex Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Bickle. The matter was brought before the court to address the issue of costs arising from the originating application. The respondent sought an order for costs on an indemnity basis, arguing that the applicant had acted irresponsibly by persisting with the application despite non-compliance with certain procedural requirements. The applicant, on the other hand, did not oppose the order for costs being made on the standard basis but did oppose the indemnity basis. A significant aspect of the case was the applicant's solicitor's request for the respondent's solicitor to articulate the alleged non-compliance, which was not responded to.

The court needed to determine whether the circumstances of the case justified departing from the usual order concerning costs, particularly whether the applicant had acted irresponsibly. The court noted that the applicant had not acted irresponsibly, as the non-compliance issue was not sufficiently articulated by the respondent. Furthermore, the lack of response to the applicant's request for clarification on the non-compliance further complicated the situation. The court concluded that, while the respondent had made out a prima facie case for indemnity costs, the applicant had not acted irresponsibly, and therefore, the court should not depart from the usual order concerning costs.

The court found that the appropriate order was for the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the original application to be assessed on the standard basis. The court highlighted that the applicant's persistence in the application was not deemed irresponsible, and the lack of response to the request for clarification further supported this decision. This order reflects a balanced approach, taking into account the procedural nuances and the conduct of both parties.