Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 2]

The appeal in Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 2] involved the plaintiffs, Frigger, appealing against the decision of Master Sanderson, who had granted summary judgment to the defendants, Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd. The plaintiffs argued that the Master had erred in dismissing their claims and that the defendants had committed fraud on the court by presenting forged documents. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appeal should proceed and whether the plaintiffs should be required to pay the defendants' costs.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments presented by the plaintiffs regarding the supervening event and the decision in Kitay v Frigger [2022] WASC 284. The plaintiffs argued that the appeal had become inutile due to the supervening event. However, the Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the supervening event provided a proper basis for departing from the usual approach of requiring the appellant to pay the respondent's costs. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs' failure to pay the required security for costs resulted in the dismissal of the appeal and the imposition of costs against the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the third, fourth, and fifth respondents' costs of the appeal. The Court held that the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the supervening event did not provide a proper basis for departing from the usual approach of requiring the appellant to pay the respondent's costs. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had effectively invited the court to dismiss the whole appeal on the basis that they believed the appeal had become inutile. The Court found that the plaintiffs' failure to pay the required security for costs resulted in the dismissal of the appeal and the imposition of costs against the plaintiffs.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal be dismissed and that the plaintiffs pay the third, fourth, and fifth respondents' costs of the appeal. The Court held that the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the supervening event did not provide a proper basis for departing from the usual approach of requiring the appellant to pay the respondent's costs. The Court also found that the plaintiffs' failure to pay the required security for costs resulted in the dismissal of the appeal and the imposition of costs against the plaintiffs.