CMA Corporation Limited v McSorley (No 2)

In the Federal Court of Australia, CMA Corporation Limited sought a lump sum costs order against McSorley. The dispute arose from an action where CMA Corporation sought damages for breach of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. The case had been settled, and the issue before the court was the form of the costs order, with the plaintiffs requesting a lump sum costs order rather than a taxed costs order.

The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to make a lump sum costs order when such an order was not opposed by the defendant. The court noted that it had the discretion to order costs in a lump sum under section 20 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. It considered the precedents and the relevant principles, including the appropriateness of the lump sum order in the circumstances of the case.

The court found that it was appropriate to make the lump sum costs order as requested by the plaintiffs. The defendant had not opposed the application, and the court considered the factors relevant to the assessment of costs, including the complexity and duration of the proceedings, the skill and experience of the lawyers involved, and the amount at stake. The court concluded that a lump sum costs order was a fair and reasonable way to determine the costs of the proceedings in these circumstances.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the plaintiffs' costs be awarded in a lump sum of $123,306.77, instead of any taxed costs. The entry of orders was dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.