Comcare v Broadhurst (No 2)

Comcare v Broadhurst (No 2) involved Comcare as the appellant and Broadhurst as the respondent, with the dispute centering on a variation of a costs order. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the cross-appellant could vary a costs order made in a previous decision, specifically regarding the costs associated with a Notice of Motion filed by the cross-appellant. The court was required to decide if the cross-appellant had the liberty to apply for a variation of the costs order and, if so, whether the application should be granted.

The court examined the relevant rules and precedents concerning the variation of costs orders. It determined that while there is a general liberty to apply for such a variation, the cross-appellant's application did not meet the necessary criteria. The court found that the cross-appellant had not demonstrated any new or compelling circumstances warranting a departure from the original order. Consequently, the court held that the cross-appellant did not have the liberty to apply for a variation of the costs order.

As a result, the court vacated the previous order and substituted it with a new order stating there would be no costs order in respect of the cross-appeal. Additionally, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion filed by the cross-appellant and ordered that the cross-appellant pay the costs of the cross-respondent in relation to the Notice of Motion. This decision clarified the process and criteria for varying costs orders and reinforced the importance of demonstrating new circumstances to justify such a variation.