Cook v Alderson (No.2)

The case of Cook v Alderson (No.2) was before a court that handled civil proceedings in the state or territory courts. The plaintiff, Cook, was successful in her claim for equitable compensation against the defendants, Alderson, due to the unilateral termination of a property arrangement. The defendants sought a costs order against the plaintiff on a standard basis, arguing that the plaintiff had substantially failed in respect of the issues in dispute at trial. The court was required to decide whether the defendants' sought costs order should be granted in light of the general rule that costs should follow the event.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was the application of the general rule that costs should follow the event. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had substantially failed on the "units of litigation" or issues in dispute at trial, and therefore, they should be granted a costs order against the plaintiff. The court needed to weigh the defendants' arguments and determine whether the general rule should apply, considering the plaintiff's successful claim and the nature of the issues in dispute.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and the general rule that costs should follow the event. The court found that the plaintiff's success in her claim for equitable compensation was significant, and the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated that the plaintiff had substantially failed in respect of the issues in dispute at trial. The court concluded that the general rule applied, and therefore, the defendants' sought costs order should not be granted.

There be no order as to costs.