Bechara v Sotrip Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 3)

The case of Bechara v Sotrip Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 3) was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Bechara, sought a determination of the costs associated with two separate applications made during the litigation process. The first application was to dismiss an amended application filed on 24 May 2013, and the second was to set aside a specific order made by McMurdo J on 17 April 2013. The defendants, Sotrip Pty Ltd, were in liquidation at the time of the proceedings.

The court was tasked with determining whether the costs associated with these applications should be classified as costs of the proceeding or costs in the proceeding. This distinction is significant as it affects the party responsible for bearing those costs under the general rule that costs follow the event. The court needed to assess whether the applications were integral to the main proceeding or separate issues that warranted their own cost classification.

The court found that the costs of the application to dismiss the amended application filed on 24 May 2013 were to be considered costs of the proceeding. This was because the application was seen as part of the main litigation process. Conversely, the costs of the application to set aside the order made by McMurdo J on 17 April 2013 were deemed costs in the proceeding, as this application dealt with a distinct issue separate from the core matters of the case. The court's reasoning was based on the nature and impact of each application on the overall litigation process.

The final orders of the court were that the costs of the application to dismiss the amended application filed on 24 May 2013 were to be treated as costs of the proceeding. Additionally, the costs of the application to set aside the order made by McMurdo J on 17 April 2013 were to be treated as costs in the proceeding. This decision effectively allocated the financial burden of these applications between the parties in line with the court's assessment of their relevance to the main litigation.