Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council (No 2)

In the case of Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council (No 2), the respondent, Mr Giurina, sought an award of costs following the dismissal of his appeal against the respondent Council. The primary dispute revolved around the Council's decision to refuse Mr Giurina's application for a building permit, which he appealed. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Mr Giurina contended that the Council's actions were unreasonable and that the Council should be held accountable for the costs incurred during the litigation, arguing that the Council engaged in misconduct that invited the litigation.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Council's conduct warranted an award of costs on a gross sum basis, as provided under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 rule 63.07. This rule allows for an award of costs on a gross sum basis if the court finds that a party has engaged in misconduct that invited the litigation. Mr Giurina submitted that the Council's actions were vexatious and that the costs should be awarded on a gross sum basis, rather than the usual indemnity basis. The Council, on the other hand, argued that there was no misconduct that warranted such an award.

The Court found that the Council did not engage in misconduct that invited the litigation, and therefore, the award of costs should not be on a gross sum basis. The Court concluded that while the Council's decision was unreasonable, it did not amount to misconduct that warranted the higher costs award. The Court ordered that the costs of the appeal be paid on the usual indemnity basis. The Court emphasised that while the Council's decision was unreasonable, it did not engage in the type of misconduct that would justify a gross sum costs order. The Court's decision was grounded in the principle that costs should reflect the conduct of the parties during the litigation, and that a gross sum costs order should only be made in the most egregious circumstances.