Divjakoski v Boral Window Systems [No 2]

In the matter of Divjakoski v Boral Window Systems [No 2], the Federal Court of Australia considered the issue of costs incurred in the context of a special order. The case arose from a dispute where Divjakoski sought compensation for injuries sustained during the installation of windows manufactured by Boral Window Systems. The specific focus of the litigation was whether Divjakoski was entitled to a special order for costs, given the unique circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the case's unique facts warranted a special order for costs. The court had to evaluate whether the circumstances of the case were sufficiently exceptional to justify deviating from the usual principles governing costs orders in litigation. This involved an assessment of the particularities of the case and whether these warranted a departure from the standard approach to awarding costs.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the case did not present the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify a special order for costs. The court noted that while the case involved a unique factual matrix, it did not meet the threshold required to warrant a special order. The decision was based on the principle that costs orders should generally follow the usual rules and guidelines, except in cases of exceptional circumstances. As a result, the court upheld the general principles of costs allocation and did not make a special order for costs in this instance.

The court's decision concluded that no special order for costs was warranted, and the usual rules governing costs in litigation would apply. This decision reinforces the principle that exceptional circumstances are necessary to justify a deviation from standard cost orders. The court's ruling provided clarity on the application of costs orders in cases with unique factual situations, while maintaining the general approach to cost allocation.