Covington-Thomas v Cth of Australia [No 3]

Covington-Thomas and others brought a claim against the Commonwealth of Australia regarding damages caused by the collision between the Melbourne and the Voyager vessels. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs sought various costs associated with the litigation, including indemnity costs, the costs of a second junior counsel, an order for interest on the service of the bill of costs, and a stay pending appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to indemnity costs, the costs of a second junior counsel, an order for interest on the service of the bill of costs, and a stay pending appeal. The court considered the relevant legal principles and authorities, as well as the circumstances of the case. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to indemnity costs, the costs of a second junior counsel, and an order for interest on the service of the bill of costs. However, the court declined to grant a stay pending appeal.

The court's reasoning was based on a number of factors. Firstly, the court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to indemnity costs as they had been successful in their claim and the Commonwealth had acted unreasonably in the proceedings. Secondly, the court found that the costs of a second junior counsel were necessary and reasonable, given the complexity of the case and the need for additional expertise. Thirdly, the court found that an order for interest on the service of the bill of costs was appropriate, as the Commonwealth had delayed in paying the costs. Finally, the court declined to grant a stay pending appeal, as it did not consider that the appeal had a serious question to be tried.

The court's final orders were that the plaintiffs were entitled to indemnity costs, the costs of a second junior counsel, and an order for interest on the service of the bill of costs. The court declined to grant a stay pending appeal.