Cam and Bear Pty Ltd v McGoldrick (No 2)

The case of Cam and Bear Pty Ltd v McGoldrick (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a company, and the defendant, an auditor. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had breached a duty of care and issued misleading and deceptive statements through the audit of the company's financial statements. The defendant raised several defences, including that no relevant duty was reasonably available and that there was no breach, particularly in light of the serious and significant breach that had already been determined by the Court. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should be departed from, in light of the exceptional circumstances present in the case. The Court had to determine whether the discretion to award costs should be exercised judicially, considering the defendant's success on only one aspect of the proceedings - causation - while still being found to have breached a duty of care and issued misleading and deceptive statements.

The Court found that the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should not be departed from in this case. The Court held that causation was an insignificant aspect of the proceedings, given the serious and significant breach already established. The Court noted that the defence of no relevant duty was not reasonably available and that the defence of no breach was also unsuccessful. The Court exercised its discretion judicially, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the case, and determined that no order as to costs should be made.

No further orders were made in relation to the costs in this case. The Court's decision highlights the importance of considering exceptional circumstances when exercising discretion in awarding costs, particularly in cases where the defendant is successful only on a minor aspect of the proceedings.