Foundas v Arambatzis (No 4)

The matter involved Foundas, the appellant, and Arambatzis, the respondent, with the Court of Appeal deciding the appeal. The dispute was centred on a costs order made against Foundas in relation to a case where the respondent's claims were based on forged documents. The appeal challenged the primary judge's decision to award gross sum costs to the appellant.

The court had to consider whether the appellant was entitled to an indemnity costs order due to the respondent's conduct, which was deemed unmeritorious and vexatious, as it involved forged documents. The court also examined the appropriateness of a gross sum costs order under the circumstances, taking into account the appellant's limited financial means and the respondent's ability to satisfy such an order. Additionally, the court assessed the sufficiency of the evidence presented in support of the costs claimed, particularly regarding the payment of invoices and the timing of the cost agreement.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent's conduct warranted an indemnity costs order as it amounted to a relevant delinquency or exceptional circumstances. The court also deemed the gross sum costs order appropriate given the appellant's financial constraints and the respondent's questionable ability to pay. The court concluded that the evidence provided was sufficient to support the costs claimed, noting that the consequences of non-disclosure should not be broader than those contemplated by the relevant legislation.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs on an indemnity basis, along with an additional sum to cover the costs of the appeal. The court also confirmed the appropriateness of the gross sum costs order and directed the parties to adhere to the relevant legal provisions concerning the disclosure of costs.