EHome Construction Pty Ltd v GCB Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2)

EHome Construction Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought to challenge an adjudication decision that favoured GCB Constructions Pty Ltd, the first respondent. The dispute came before the court to determine whether the adjudication decision was valid and to address the first respondent’s contention that it was in the position of a plaintiff or counterclaimant, which would entitle it to indemnity costs. The first respondent had made an offer to settle under the UCPR Chapter 9 Part 5, which resulted in an outcome no less favourable than the offer, and had also brought an interlocutory application to declare the applicant in contempt for failing to comply with an order requiring payment of monies into Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the first respondent’s position as a party who was required to establish the validity of the adjudication decision entitled it to indemnity costs, given that it had effectively acted as the plaintiff or counterclaimant. The court also considered whether the applicant's arguments were without merit and whether the first respondent’s actions in bringing an interlocutory contempt application justified a departure from the usual course of costs being assessed on the standard basis.

The court determined that the first respondent was not in the position of a plaintiff or counterclaimant and that the usual course of costs being assessed on the standard basis should apply. The court found that the applicant’s arguments were not without merit and that the first respondent’s actions in bringing the interlocutory contempt application did not justify a departure from the standard basis of costs assessment. Consequently, the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, assessed on the standard basis.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be assessed on the standard basis. This decision underscores the importance of carefully considering the respective positions of the parties in determining the appropriate basis for costs assessment in civil proceedings.