D.J. & M.A. Hose Pty Ltd ATF the Hose Family Trust ACN 010 999 210 v Wide Bay Insurance Broking Pty Ltd ATF the Wide Bay Business Trust ACN 130 391 301

In this matter, the plaintiff, D.J. & M.A. Hose Pty Ltd, pursued legal action against the defendant, Wide Bay Insurance Broking Pty Ltd, in relation to a dispute concerning the form of pleadings. The case was heard in the relevant state court. The primary issues before the court involved the assessment of costs incurred during various stages of the proceedings, including the plaintiff's strike-out application, the defendant's withdrawal of admissions application, and a subsequent oral application made by the plaintiff.

The court was tasked with determining how the costs discretion should be exercised, considering the outcomes of these individual applications. The plaintiff argued for costs based on the successful outcomes of their applications, while the defendant contended that the costs should reflect the unsuccessful applications as well. The court needed to balance the respective positions of the parties in exercising its discretion.

After considering the submissions from both parties, the court concluded that the costs of the plaintiff’s application filed on 19 May 2022, the defendant’s application filed on 13 July 2022, and the plaintiff’s oral application made by leave on 26 July 2022 should all be considered costs in the proceeding. This decision acknowledged the procedural complexities and the need to fairly allocate costs based on the specific outcomes of each application.

The court’s final order specified that the costs associated with the aforementioned applications would be costs in the proceeding, reflecting the court’s balanced approach to the allocation of costs in complex civil litigation.