Coshott v Prentice (No 2)

The matter of Coshott v Prentice (No 2) involved an application for lump sum costs order in relation to three appeals heard together in the Federal Court. The primary concern was whether a lump sum costs order was appropriate given the circumstances of the appeals. The appellants argued against such an order, contending that it would require the Court to assess the proportion of the hearing devoted to each appeal and to apportion the parties’ written submissions between each appeal, which they believed was a task for a taxing officer, not the Full Court. They submitted that this would not be appropriate.

The Court considered the matter and concluded that a consolidated costs order against the appellants would be inappropriate as it would cover the costs of all three appeals and thereby wrongly impose costs on each appellant that were incurred in proceedings to which they were not a party. The Court further found that such an order would require the Full Court to allocate costs as between each appeal, a complicated task given the crossover of the content of parties' written and oral submissions. The Court held that such a task, if required, was more appropriately conducted by a taxing officer, and that the potential benefits of a lump sum costs order avoiding the expense, delay and aggravation of a taxation were illusory in the present appeals.

The Court dismissed the respondent's application for costs awarded as a lump sum and ordered that the respondent pay the appellants' costs of the interlocutory application. The Court emphasised the importance of the parties recognising that the already protracted litigation over costs had proved to be of little advantage to any of their interests and encouraged the use of other cooperative methods to settle the costs of these appeals with the least transactional cost possible.