Davis Stack Capital Pty Ltd v Raj & Jai (Mudgee) Pty Ltd (No 2)

The defendants appealed against a costs order which was made against them following the plaintiffs’ successful litigation. The plaintiffs had sued the first defendant, a company, and the second defendant, an individual, for breach of contract and for recovery of certain property. The first defendant had settled the dispute, but the second defendant had not. The plaintiffs were successful in their claims against the first defendant, but they were unsuccessful in their claim for specific performance against the second defendant. The plaintiffs applied for costs under the general rule that costs follow the event, and the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs’ costs. The defendants appealed against the order, arguing that the court should have reduced the costs payable by the defendants because the plaintiffs’ claim for specific performance against the second defendant was a dominant or separable issue.

The court was required to determine whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be applied in its usual manner, or whether the court should exercise its discretion to reduce the costs payable by the defendants. The court considered the principles established in previous cases regarding the application of the rule and the circumstances in which the court may exercise its discretion. The court also considered whether the claim for specific performance against the second defendant was a dominant or separable issue, and whether this affected the application of the general rule.

The court held that the general rule that costs follow the event should be applied, but that the court had discretion to reduce the costs payable by the defendants. The court found that the claim for specific performance against the second defendant was not a dominant or separable issue, and that the plaintiffs’ success in their other claims against the first defendant was sufficient to justify the general rule being applied. However, the court considered that the amount of costs payable by the defendants was excessive, and that it was appropriate to reduce the amount payable. The court made an order reducing the amount payable by the defendants for the plaintiffs’ costs.

The court made an order reducing the amount payable by the defendants for the plaintiffs’ costs, and dismissing the defendants’ appeal. The court held that the general rule that costs follow the event should be applied, but that the court had discretion to reduce the costs payable by the defendants. The court found that the claim for specific performance against the second defendant was not a dominant or separable issue, and that the plaintiffs’ success in their other claims against the first defendant was sufficient to justify the general rule being applied. However, the court considered that the amount of costs payable by the defendants was excessive, and that it was appropriate to reduce the amount payable. The court made an order reducing the amount payable by the defendants for the plaintiffs’ costs.