Dr Angus MacKinnon v Bluescope Steel Limited (Formerly known as BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd and Dalmau & Associates Pty Ltd - Second Defendant - Draft One Communications Pty Ltd - Cross Defendant

The case before the court involved Dr Angus MacKinnon, who brought a claim against Bluescope Steel Limited (formerly BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd) and Dalmau & Associates Pty Ltd, with Draft One Communications Pty Ltd as a cross defendant. The primary dispute centred on professional negligence and the related costs incurred. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's claims and the appropriate allocation of costs, particularly focusing on the costs predominantly borne by the cross defendants.

The legal issues before the court were two-fold. Firstly, it was necessary to determine whether certain matters, not raised during the trial, could be considered relevant to the issue of costs. The plaintiff argued that the financial position of the plaintiff and various offers of compromise made by the defendants were pertinent to the costs determination. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that these issues were not relevant as the verdicts were in their favour and all outstanding cross claims were dismissed.

The court found that since the verdicts were in favour of both defendants and all cross claims were dismissed, there was no necessity to delve into the merits of the case in the absence of a finding against the defendants. The court held that matters which did not emerge during the trial, such as the financial position of the plaintiff and the offers of compromise, were not relevant to the costs issue. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's attempts to introduce these matters post-trial for the purposes of costs. The court reasoned that the financial position of the plaintiff and the offers of compromise were not pertinent to the costs determination in the context of the case's outcome.

As a result of the court's findings, the plaintiff's attempts to introduce the financial position of the plaintiff and the offers of compromise as relevant to the costs issue were dismissed. The court's decision underscored the principle that issues not raised during the trial cannot be considered for costs determination in the absence of a finding against the defendants. The court's ruling provided clarity on the scope of relevant matters for costs issues in similar cases.