D & L Events Pty Ltd v Opetaia (No 2)

The case of D & L Events Pty Ltd v Opetaia (No 2) dealt with a dispute over costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for damages in lieu of specific performance of a contract. The trial judge had previously dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages, finding that the plaintiff had repudiated the contract by seeking to compel the defendant to participate in boxing matches not promoted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to pay seventy per cent of the defendant's costs, arguing that certain issues raised in the defendant's defence and counterclaim were unsuccessful, abandoned during trial, or unnecessary to decide. The plaintiff contended that these issues increased the length and complexity of the trial and the scope of disclosure.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay a portion of the defendant's costs due to the unsuccessful, abandoned, or unnecessary issues raised in the defendant's defence and counterclaim. The plaintiff argued that while the general rule is that costs follow the event, there is an exception where issues are clearly separable. The defendant, on the other hand, submitted that since the central issue in favour of the defendant was decided in his favour, costs should follow the event without exception.

The court considered the submissions of both parties and concluded that the plaintiff should pay the defendant's full costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including reserved costs. The court found that the defendant had succeeded on the central issue, which was decisive of the case, and thus the general rule that costs follow the event should apply. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that certain issues were separable and should attract a different costs outcome.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's full costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. This decision underscored the principle that where a party succeeds on the central issue of a case, they are entitled to full costs, barring exceptional circumstances that were not present in this case.