Central Goldfields Shire v Haley & Ors (No 2)

The Central Goldfields Shire sought costs from Haley and others, with the primary focus on whether an order under Bullock or Sanderson should be made against the unsuccessful defendant for the costs of the trial or appeal. The successful defendant had reasonably joined in the case. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the unsuccessful defendant should bear the costs of the trial or appeal under the Bullock or Sanderson principles, considering the conduct of the unsuccessful defendant and whether the successful defendant had reasonably joined the case.

The court examined the principles set out in Bullock and Sanderson to determine the appropriate costs order. It considered the conduct of the unsuccessful defendant, which was found to be unreasonable, and whether the successful defendant had reasonably joined the proceedings. The court determined that the unsuccessful defendant's conduct was such that it warranted a costs order under Sanderson. The successful defendant's reasonable joinder did not affect the applicability of the Sanderson order.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that an order should be made under Sanderson, as the unsuccessful defendant's conduct warranted such an order. The court found that the unsuccessful defendant's actions were unreasonable and contributed to the costs incurred. The conduct of the unsuccessful defendant was a significant factor in the court's decision, outweighing any consideration of the successful defendant's reasonable joinder. The court ordered the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs of the trial and appeal as per the Sanderson principle.