Bradman v Allens Arthur Robinson (No 2)

Bradman v Allens Arthur Robinson (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants, who were successful in their application for summary judgment concerning certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' statement of claim. The central issue before the court was whether specific paragraphs should be struck out or dismissed and if costs should be payable immediately, reserved, or borne by the cause. The court had to balance the successful party’s entitlement to costs against the potential for further litigation, which could influence the costs outcome.

The court considered the possibility of additional interlocutory applications that could affect the costs, given the plaintiffs’ prospects of success in those future proceedings. The judge reasoned that if the plaintiffs had applied for an adjournment, they might have succeeded. However, since the plaintiffs did not seek an adjournment, it was not appropriate to reserve the costs or deny the defendants their costs for the successful summary judgment application. The judge also highlighted that the prospect of further applications provided sufficient reason to decline ordering the costs to be paid immediately.

In conclusion, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on paragraphs [33] to [35] of the plaintiffs' statement of claim. The court also struck out several other paragraphs and specific terms from the plaintiffs’ statement of claim. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay 80 per cent of the defendants’ costs associated with the summary judgment application, with these costs not being payable forthwith.