Central Australian Aboriginal Congress v CGU Insurance

The case involved the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (Congress) suing CGU Insurance (CGU) for indemnity under an insurance policy. The Congress sought indemnity costs for both the trial and the appeal. The legal issues centred on whether the Congress was entitled to indemnity costs for the appeal, given that the appeal did not succeed on the point raised at trial. Additionally, the court had to determine whether CGU should be deprived of its costs, and whether it was appropriate for two counsel to represent the Congress.

The court examined the principles governing indemnity costs in insurance cases, particularly focusing on the concept of "fit for two counsel". The Congress argued that the appeal had succeeded on a point not raised at trial, thus justifying indemnity costs for the appeal. However, the court found that the appeal had not succeeded on the point raised at trial, and therefore, the Congress was not entitled to indemnity costs for the appeal. Furthermore, the court held that CGU should not be deprived of its costs as there was no basis for doing so. The court also ruled that it was not appropriate for the Congress to be represented by two counsel, concluding that the costs incurred were not justified.

In conclusion, the court found that the Congress was not entitled to indemnity costs for the appeal and that CGU was not to be deprived of its costs. The court further held that it was not appropriate for the Congress to be represented by two counsel. The court's decision resulted in the Congress not receiving indemnity costs for the appeal, CGU retaining its costs, and the Congress being required to pay its own costs for the appeal.