Forgione v Ashurst Australia (No 2)

In this matter, Forgione sought costs from Ashurst Australia after a successful application under section 350(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), which has since been repealed. The primary issue was whether the unsuccessful party, Ashurst Australia, should bear the costs of the proceedings. The court had to determine whether the successful party, Forgione, was entitled to have its costs awarded against the unsuccessful party under the repealed statute. Additionally, the court needed to decide if there were exceptional circumstances that would justify the unsuccessful party being ordered to pay the successful party's costs.

The court considered the nature of the proceedings and the specific provisions of the repealed statute. It noted that the repealed section 350(1) provided a general rule that the unsuccessful party should pay the costs of the successful party. However, the court also examined the principle that each party should bear their own costs unless there were exceptional circumstances warranting a deviation from this principle. The court concluded that, in the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the general rule applied, and each party should bear their own costs. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances present in this case that would justify ordering the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party's costs.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs. This decision was based on the general principle that each party should bear their own costs unless there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a deviation from this principle. The court did not find any such circumstances in this case, and therefore, upheld the principle that each party should bear their own costs. This conclusion was reached by considering the specific provisions of the repealed statute and the general principle of costs in Australian law.

The final orders of the court were that each party bear their own costs of the proceedings. The court did not order the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party's costs, as it found no exceptional circumstances that would justify such an order. This outcome reflects the court's adherence to the principle that each party should bear their own costs unless there are compelling reasons to order otherwise.