Bloom as Executor of the Estate of Farr (deceased) v Paradise Lake Pty Ltd (No.3)

In *Bloom as Executor of the Estate of Farr (deceased) v Paradise Lake Pty Ltd (No.3)*, heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, the applicant, acting as executor of the estate of Farr (deceased), sought to vary a costs order previously made. The respondent, Paradise Lake Pty Ltd, had been the unsuccessful party in the substantive proceedings. The application for variation was brought pursuant to liberty to apply, with the applicant seeking to have the respondent bear the costs of a discrete issue within the original proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the previously made costs order should be varied to reflect the respondent's unsuccessful position on a specific, discrete issue. This required the Court to consider the principles governing applications to vary costs orders, particularly where liberty to apply had been reserved or granted.

Judge Manousaridis dismissed the application for variation. The Court reasoned that the original costs order had been made on a comprehensive basis, reflecting the overall outcome of the litigation. While acknowledging that the respondent may have been unsuccessful on a particular discrete issue, the Court found no compelling reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, especially when the overall success lay with the respondent in the broader context of the litigation. The Court applied the principle that variations to costs orders are exceptional and require strong justification, which was not demonstrated in this instance.