Gerald Jaworski v Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (No 5)

Gerald Jaworski brought an action against Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute arose from the professional services provided by the defendant to the plaintiff and the subsequent dissatisfaction with the outcome. Jaworski sought relief under the Australian Consumer Law, alleging that Chartered Accountants had breached their obligations by providing misleading and deceptive conduct. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's conduct was indeed misleading or deceptive and, if so, the appropriate remedy, including the issue of costs.

The court examined whether Chartered Accountants had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs under the principle that costs should follow the event. The court considered the statutory provisions regarding misleading or deceptive conduct and the case law on costs orders, including the principle that costs should generally follow the event.

In its decision, the court found that Chartered Accountants had indeed engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. However, the court determined that the principle that costs should follow the event did not apply in this instance. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's claim was not entirely successful, as the court did not grant all the relief sought. Therefore, the court made a costs order, but it did not follow the traditional principle that costs should follow the event. Instead, the court exercised its discretion to make an order for costs that it deemed appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that Chartered Accountants were liable for misleading or deceptive conduct, and an order for costs was made, but not in accordance with the principle that costs should follow the event. The court ordered Chartered Accountants to pay a specified amount towards the plaintiff's costs, reflecting its discretion in the matter.